You don't need the PI license to record data from Limewire, you need the PI license to present it in court as an expert witness.
MediaSentry absolutely doesn't want to be an expert witness. As an expert witness they & their methods are subject to cross examination. They've been dancing this dance since day 1. They aren't private investigators, because then they could be regulated, have oversight, etc. They aren't expert witnesses because then their methodologies would have to be displayed & would be eligible for review. They want to play both roles without having to be subject to the rules governing either side.
If you want to cut the power usage of the IT department, encourage remote workers. It doesn't help overall, but it moves the power usage to the user's home.
Actually, it was mentioned in TFA that having someone remote work doesn't reduce the energy load @ the office unless the office is smart enough to shut down the extra heating/cooling/lighting. Thus the discussion about tying LDAP logins to the heating/cooling/lighting system. When the last person logs out, shut down the AC/Heating, and 10 minutes later have the lights go out - that type of automation is the heart of using IT & it's many tendrils to help reduce corporate energy consumption.
Of course I think that getting people to listen to IT when they say something is overkill would be nice too. I've seen too many high end PC's doing nothing but lightweight WP & Email to think that there isn't substantial savings there. I know of at least 2 quad core systems w/ high end graphics cards that have never done anything harder than open up a webpage.
F**k definition, global warming is the increase in temperature. Vice versa global cooling is decrease of global temperature.
Any rational argument requires that all participants are discussing the same thing. If you're going to fuck the definitions, then we are obviously not going to be having the same argument.
Weather is by definition short term & localized. Climate is an aggregate function of weather. Global climate is an aggregate function of regional climate. Saying last month was cool, therefore we are in a period of global cooling is asinine because climate is about long term trends not about instances.
Each of these ships weighs 300 tonnes (which I presume is close enough to a ton for engineering), or 600,000lbs.
When you talk about the size of a ship, you're talking displacement, not weight. In this case you're talking about 300^3M of water displaced at maximum load capacity. Most river barges are at least as big as that - 10MX30M w/ a 1M draft is small - and cost substantially less.
The ratio of weight/displacement also plays a role in how seaworthy a ship is - too close to 1 & it swamps easily. Too low & it rides too high & becomes top heavy. The obvious is over 1 & it's called an anchor.
Is why the folks at the national agencies aren't doing anything about it. I mean, they have clearly crossed the line. Where are the ATF and FBI guys that acted in Waco when you need them?
Um, the ATF is waiting for the church to purchase automatic firearms.
I want one of these for network tech work. I do some in-home networking work, and I would love one of these. Lighter than a laptop, running a full Linux TCP/IP stack, cheap enough to not worry about breaking it. From my standpoint, these are perfect for field work. Hell if I can get KIAX, SSH, and Firefox to work on it reliably, that's 95% of what I need a laptop for onsite.
In this case, the submitter indicated that the domain name is his last-name. That sounds like a pretty solid defense in any court against the squatting argument. In terms of any squatting or trademark dispute, his claim (last name) is equally valid to the company's claim (company name).
Depends on the name & the country. McD's doesn't push trademark restrictions too hard in the UK because Lord McDonald of McDonald told them to lay off or else. In some places, a person's name wins every time. In the US it depends on timing & scope. However, in most instances, trademark violations have to show the potential for confusion - with few exceptions, a personal website cannot be easily confused with a corporate homepage.
In terms of squatting, it would depend, since he's using & has been using the domain for email - the presence or absence of a website is irrelevant to squatting. Showing active use of the domain for some purpose other than ad-parking is usually sufficient to kill a squatting complaint.
Seems like I've heard similar horror stories of people losing their domains because they asked someone to make an offer.
The company has already made an inquiry into purchasing the domain, asking them to make an offer to test their level of interest wouldn't apply. Cold calling them & asking them to make an offer certainly might trip trademark issues, but responding to a legitimate inquiry shouldn't.
Most of the issues I've heard about were either typo-squatters, or people who had a parked site collecting revenue from people looking for the companies website.
One researcher found that the overwhelming contribution to the increased rate of divorce is the modern concept of marriage for love instead of position/wealth. The current divorce trend is simply the end result of a curve started in the years following the civil war.
So if these conservatives want to go back to an idyllic time with low divorce & happy families - I say bring back arranged marriages.
Apple would love to get out of DRM. First off it's expensive to create. It's worse to maintain - and they have to maintain it because it's in their contract. Second, while it's fairly unobtrusive, most of iTunes support calls still revolve around DRM.
Dropping DRM would reduce the overhead costs for iTunes - probably in the 2-5% range - and there is no company in the world that doesn't want to make more money for doing less.
The signature is not a security feature. Unless you want to train tens of millions of clerks in precision handwriting analysis techniques.
It's merely a token of accession to contract terms. Having people write, "yes" would be just as effective.
I used to have "CHECK ID" printed on my card. About half the clerks would look at the card & my signature, then hand back the card & finish processing the transaction.
There is a real problem with classifying what MediaSentry did as an "investigation". They are performing a service that involves tracking down IP addresses based on information gathered through connecting to various computers on the Internet.
An equivalent "investigation" occurs if you have a contractor examine logs for unwanted SSH traffic and reporting back the IP addresses, as well as the ISP to which they are connected. Is this something that requires licensing to do? If so, we better make sure that every single admin is licensed in this manner.
That really depends on exactly how the law is written, in the case of examining your own logs, most states don't require an investigators license. If you set up a business where you consult with businesses post-breach to determine who & where the attack came from, then you would. Another governing factor is usually in the disposition of the information - if the goal is to use that information in court, then a license is needed. If it's just informative, then it's often not. For example - a data recovery company wouldn't need a license to salvage a crashed HD for a business that just needs the data to conduct business. They probably would need one to salvage the data for a lawfirm who needs the data to prove their case.
Get tossed in jail for Contempt of Court? They would have to prove that the information was there in the first place. Kind of hard to do at that point.
Not really, forensic data work is done with bitcopies of the the HD not with the original.
then the "court-endorsed" standard for obscenity will be struck down.
The "standard" is the porn equivalent of OOXML.
Talk to Barbara Nitke about that. The supreme court wouldn't even look at the case because the ACLU couldn't show 'enough variation in community standards' to invalidate the Miller Test.
Obscene material isn't granted 1st amendment coverage, so by slipping in the obscenity requirement in the law, you can't challenge it on 1st amendment grounds. You probably have a better chance going for 'compelling interest' type reasoning, but the likelyhood of winning there isn't very high.
First amendment grounds, the problem is that they issued an order that engaged in prior restraint. You can sue someone for something afterwards, but you generally can't require them to not say it at all. This judge issued the TRO so he had time to look at the facts - the MBTA was arguing something novel, when he looked at the facts, he tossed the MBTA's argument out the door. The problem is that the TRO became a defacto RO because the conference is already over.
Those buildings WERE NOT AIR, and they WERE NOT EMPTY. They had GIANT solid steel beams throughout their entire core. Just do the minimal of research on destruction of sky scrapers. Do even a small comparison of a few demolitions, watch those tapes, review the evidence at hand and tell me how planes melted those central steel columns when jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel that quickly or thoroughly.
First off, yes they were about 90% air, that's what makes them useful as an office building. Next the beams are hardly 'GIANT', they seem to be fairly standard construction I-beams. You want giant go look in a steel mill, shipyard, or suspension bridge.
You don't need to melt steel to make it useless as a structural element. Depending on the type of steel & it's treatment, it can loose up to 80% of it's structural strength prior to even starting to glow. Specifically, heat treated types of steel - such as used in high strength bolts & nuts - turn to shit very quickly. I don't recall if the Twin Towers were built with rivet or bolt joints, but either would fail long before the beams themselves would begin to melt - the bolts being heat treated & the rivets being a mild steel.
Take it as you will, but this part of your argument isn't sound.
"Zoning" is anti-liberty crapola law; always has been. You want to control what goes on at the property next door, or down the block? Fine, then buy it. Otherwise, you have no legitimate authority over the owner's use unless they actually do something that affects you or your property -- not "might' do something, or you are "afraid" they might do something, because that nonsense is thought-crime (and it's YOUR thoughts!), but actually does something.
Zoning has been happening since the 12th century - in at least one case a person purchased a small plot of land next to a large estate for the sole purpose if putting in a tannery to drive out the estate owners so he could purchase the estate for pennies.
Part of zoning is to regulate what types of businesses can be placed in places where people live for both their comfort & safety. According to at least one person, Mr Deeb had dioxins in his basement. Those are rather potent carcinogens which become airborne in a fire rather easily. That poses an unacceptable risk in a residential community.
I've worked in a chem lab, getting one certified to play with things like that is no picnic - and from both reports I read, he would have been shut down in an industrial setting also; the difference being he would be hit with EPA & OSHA fines as well.
Nope. Zoning and Health should need to go to the court for a warrant at that point; the emergency is past
No, if your house has a fire & the fire dept comes, it is usually required to be recertified as habitable. So, calling in the the zoning & health inspector is a perfectly normal part of dealing with a fire.
Zoning and health should not be permitted to not only search but seize the chemicals and dispose of them without so much as a hearing.
Read the article, Mr. Deep didn't object - no objection, no need for a hearing. If a cop says "I want to look in your trunk" and you say OK & open it, he doesn't need a warrant. Perhaps closer to the point, if he tells you to give him the joint tucked behind your ear so neither of you have to deal with the paperwork of a minor possession charge, he doesn't need a warrant if you comply.
In this case, health & zoning said "we want to clean this up, go live in a hotel while we do". If Mr Deep had said no, they were within their rights to decert the house for habitation and force it's cleanup by Mr Deep prior to recertification, & he would have been within his rights to fight the decert in court.
This is just another representation of the government attempting to control the lives of citizens under the guise of protecting the masses.
Um, as far as I can tell from the articles, that's not what's going on.
The house caught fire.
The firefighters put it out & discovered thousands of vials of chemicals stored in an unsafe manner.
Zoning & Health were called in - as is appropriate
Zoning & Health said, "Go stay in a hotel while we clean this up."
Mr. Deebs said "OK"
Had he argued, then the zoning board & the health board would have gone to court and blah, blah, blah. You don't need due process when the person consents. Given how both the articles I read indicated his lab was a disaster area, I doubt that his house would have passed the safety inspection following the fire without the cleanup.
Had he had a properly organized lab in the garage, he probably would have been OK, they're a lot stricter about what you can store in the house itself.
If the Knights Templars are so holy, shouldn't they swear obedience to the Pope or something just as jesuits do?
They did, and the Pope & the king of France conspired to kill them all & seize their lands on the charges of heresy, satanism, and a few other rather unpleasant things. Betrayals don't foster respect. If the record is to be believed, it was a raw money/power grab.
It baffled me why they were doing this until I realized they were fighting for their very existence.
Actually, the biggest case so far was in NJ. NJ has a nice law that explicitly states that library records cannot be released without a court order. Officers in NJ came into the library & demanded access to records from a bunch of computers and records regarding book sign-outs. When reminded of The Law they became quite indignant and abusive to the librarians.
Interestingly enough, when the police were discussing how the librarians were obstructing their investigation, they never made any mention of the fact that to do otherwise would have violated state law.
When the motion to adjourn was made, over 100 Republicans were signed up to speak for 5 minutes each on oil/energy. The Dems abused the rules
You can't abuse the first rule of Robert's Rules of order: "An motion to adjourn is always in order". Knowing that is the only thing that makes some town meetings bearable.
So I'm not going to tell you what to think, but what I plainly observed was the Dems gaming the system (the rules of the House) to prevent the Republicans from speaking. When it comes to gaming the system, the donkeys in both House and Senate have shown far less restraint than the elephants. (Or would you prefer Red vs Blue?)
Check your history, it's not new and 500 minutes of BS is still 8 hours & 20 minutes of BS. Was there an actual bill on the table requiring a vote or was this just election theater? Perhaps more importantly, would the bill be passed to the other house in September or have to be redone?
Slashdot Mirror
MediaSentry absolutely doesn't want to be an expert witness. As an expert witness they & their methods are subject to cross examination. They've been dancing this dance since day 1. They aren't private investigators, because then they could be regulated, have oversight, etc. They aren't expert witnesses because then their methodologies would have to be displayed & would be eligible for review. They want to play both roles without having to be subject to the rules governing either side.
Actually, it was mentioned in TFA that having someone remote work doesn't reduce the energy load @ the office unless the office is smart enough to shut down the extra heating/cooling/lighting. Thus the discussion about tying LDAP logins to the heating/cooling/lighting system. When the last person logs out, shut down the AC/Heating, and 10 minutes later have the lights go out - that type of automation is the heart of using IT & it's many tendrils to help reduce corporate energy consumption.
Of course I think that getting people to listen to IT when they say something is overkill would be nice too. I've seen too many high end PC's doing nothing but lightweight WP & Email to think that there isn't substantial savings there. I know of at least 2 quad core systems w/ high end graphics cards that have never done anything harder than open up a webpage.
displacement != weight. displacement = max(weight). That's what I indicated by:
The big difference is that most ships never get close to the max load.
Any rational argument requires that all participants are discussing the same thing. If you're going to fuck the definitions, then we are obviously not going to be having the same argument.
Weather is by definition short term & localized. Climate is an aggregate function of weather. Global climate is an aggregate function of regional climate. Saying last month was cool, therefore we are in a period of global cooling is asinine because climate is about long term trends not about instances.
When you talk about the size of a ship, you're talking displacement, not weight. In this case you're talking about 300^3M of water displaced at maximum load capacity. Most river barges are at least as big as that - 10MX30M w/ a 1M draft is small - and cost substantially less.
The ratio of weight/displacement also plays a role in how seaworthy a ship is - too close to 1 & it swamps easily. Too low & it rides too high & becomes top heavy. The obvious is over 1 & it's called an anchor.
No, they don't. Copyright is termed, it doesn't have to be vigorously enforced. Trademark has to be enforced or lost.
Um, the ATF is waiting for the church to purchase automatic firearms.
I want one of these for network tech work. I do some in-home networking work, and I would love one of these. Lighter than a laptop, running a full Linux TCP/IP stack, cheap enough to not worry about breaking it.
From my standpoint, these are perfect for field work. Hell if I can get KIAX, SSH, and Firefox to work on it reliably, that's 95% of what I need a laptop for onsite.
Depends on the name & the country. McD's doesn't push trademark restrictions too hard in the UK because Lord McDonald of McDonald told them to lay off or else. In some places, a person's name wins every time. In the US it depends on timing & scope. However, in most instances, trademark violations have to show the potential for confusion - with few exceptions, a personal website cannot be easily confused with a corporate homepage.
In terms of squatting, it would depend, since he's using & has been using the domain for email - the presence or absence of a website is irrelevant to squatting. Showing active use of the domain for some purpose other than ad-parking is usually sufficient to kill a squatting complaint.
The company has already made an inquiry into purchasing the domain, asking them to make an offer to test their level of interest wouldn't apply. Cold calling them & asking them to make an offer certainly might trip trademark issues, but responding to a legitimate inquiry shouldn't.
Most of the issues I've heard about were either typo-squatters, or people who had a parked site collecting revenue from people looking for the companies website.
One researcher found that the overwhelming contribution to the increased rate of divorce is the modern concept of marriage for love instead of position/wealth. The current divorce trend is simply the end result of a curve started in the years following the civil war.
So if these conservatives want to go back to an idyllic time with low divorce & happy families - I say bring back arranged marriages.
Apple would love to get out of DRM. First off it's expensive to create. It's worse to maintain - and they have to maintain it because it's in their contract. Second, while it's fairly unobtrusive, most of iTunes support calls still revolve around DRM.
Dropping DRM would reduce the overhead costs for iTunes - probably in the 2-5% range - and there is no company in the world that doesn't want to make more money for doing less.
I used to have "CHECK ID" printed on my card. About half the clerks would look at the card & my signature, then hand back the card & finish processing the transaction.
That really depends on exactly how the law is written, in the case of examining your own logs, most states don't require an investigators license. If you set up a business where you consult with businesses post-breach to determine who & where the attack came from, then you would. Another governing factor is usually in the disposition of the information - if the goal is to use that information in court, then a license is needed. If it's just informative, then it's often not. For example - a data recovery company wouldn't need a license to salvage a crashed HD for a business that just needs the data to conduct business. They probably would need one to salvage the data for a lawfirm who needs the data to prove their case.
Not really, forensic data work is done with bitcopies of the the HD not with the original.
Talk to Barbara Nitke about that. The supreme court wouldn't even look at the case because the ACLU couldn't show 'enough variation in community standards' to invalidate the Miller Test.
Obscene material isn't granted 1st amendment coverage, so by slipping in the obscenity requirement in the law, you can't challenge it on 1st amendment grounds. You probably have a better chance going for 'compelling interest' type reasoning, but the likelyhood of winning there isn't very high.
First amendment grounds, the problem is that they issued an order that engaged in prior restraint. You can sue someone for something afterwards, but you generally can't require them to not say it at all. This judge issued the TRO so he had time to look at the facts - the MBTA was arguing something novel, when he looked at the facts, he tossed the MBTA's argument out the door. The problem is that the TRO became a defacto RO because the conference is already over.
First off, yes they were about 90% air, that's what makes them useful as an office building. Next the beams are hardly 'GIANT', they seem to be fairly standard construction I-beams. You want giant go look in a steel mill, shipyard, or suspension bridge.
You don't need to melt steel to make it useless as a structural element. Depending on the type of steel & it's treatment, it can loose up to 80% of it's structural strength prior to even starting to glow. Specifically, heat treated types of steel - such as used in high strength bolts & nuts - turn to shit very quickly. I don't recall if the Twin Towers were built with rivet or bolt joints, but either would fail long before the beams themselves would begin to melt - the bolts being heat treated & the rivets being a mild steel.
Take it as you will, but this part of your argument isn't sound.
I agree with one exception ... you can set thermite off with a match. The reaction's been used as far back as the 1900's to weld train rails together.
Zoning has been happening since the 12th century - in at least one case a person purchased a small plot of land next to a large estate for the sole purpose if putting in a tannery to drive out the estate owners so he could purchase the estate for pennies.
Part of zoning is to regulate what types of businesses can be placed in places where people live for both their comfort & safety. According to at least one person, Mr Deeb had dioxins in his basement. Those are rather potent carcinogens which become airborne in a fire rather easily. That poses an unacceptable risk in a residential community.
I've worked in a chem lab, getting one certified to play with things like that is no picnic - and from both reports I read, he would have been shut down in an industrial setting also; the difference being he would be hit with EPA & OSHA fines as well.
No, if your house has a fire & the fire dept comes, it is usually required to be recertified as habitable. So, calling in the the zoning & health inspector is a perfectly normal part of dealing with a fire.
Read the article, Mr. Deep didn't object - no objection, no need for a hearing. If a cop says "I want to look in your trunk" and you say OK & open it, he doesn't need a warrant. Perhaps closer to the point, if he tells you to give him the joint tucked behind your ear so neither of you have to deal with the paperwork of a minor possession charge, he doesn't need a warrant if you comply.
In this case, health & zoning said "we want to clean this up, go live in a hotel while we do". If Mr Deep had said no, they were within their rights to decert the house for habitation and force it's cleanup by Mr Deep prior to recertification, & he would have been within his rights to fight the decert in court.
Um, as far as I can tell from the articles, that's not what's going on.
Had he argued, then the zoning board & the health board would have gone to court and blah, blah, blah. You don't need due process when the person consents. Given how both the articles I read indicated his lab was a disaster area, I doubt that his house would have passed the safety inspection following the fire without the cleanup.
Had he had a properly organized lab in the garage, he probably would have been OK, they're a lot stricter about what you can store in the house itself.
They did, and the Pope & the king of France conspired to kill them all & seize their lands on the charges of heresy, satanism, and a few other rather unpleasant things. Betrayals don't foster respect. If the record is to be believed, it was a raw money/power grab.
Actually, the biggest case so far was in NJ. NJ has a nice law that explicitly states that library records cannot be released without a court order. Officers in NJ came into the library & demanded access to records from a bunch of computers and records regarding book sign-outs. When reminded of The Law they became quite indignant and abusive to the librarians.
Interestingly enough, when the police were discussing how the librarians were obstructing their investigation, they never made any mention of the fact that to do otherwise would have violated state law.
You can't abuse the first rule of Robert's Rules of order: "An motion to adjourn is always in order". Knowing that is the only thing that makes some town meetings bearable.
Check your history, it's not new and 500 minutes of BS is still 8 hours & 20 minutes of BS. Was there an actual bill on the table requiring a vote or was this just election theater? Perhaps more importantly, would the bill be passed to the other house in September or have to be redone?