(In particular, if you can put pressure on the provider, why bother forcing them to use weak encryption and then wiretapping? Forcing them to give you direct access to servers and connection data would be simpler.)
“At CHP we definitely do not have drones. We use radar, lidar, pace, we have planes and we have helicopters, but we do not have drones,” he said. “Along with not having drones we definitely do not have any drones that would fire any type of weaponry.”
"And along with not having any such drones, we definitely have never used them; particularly not on seventeen occasions to date."
The problem is that the CC doesn't cover all use, but reproduction, modification and redistribution. It's not a EULA; it expressly only restricts those uses that would also be restricted by copyright.
2. Fair Dealing Rights. Nothing in this License is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any uses free from copyright or rights arising from limitations or exceptions that are provided for in connection with the copyright protection under copyright law or other applicable laws.
3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:
to Reproduce the Work, to incorporate the Work into one or more Collections, and to Reproduce the Work as incorporated in the Collections;
to create and Reproduce Adaptations provided that any such Adaptation, including any translation in any medium, takes reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work. For example, a translation could be marked "The original work was translated from English to Spanish," or a modification could indicate "The original work has been modified.";
to Distribute and Publicly Perform the Work including as incorporated in Collections; and,
to Distribute and Publicly Perform Adaptations. [...] 4. Restrictions. The license granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions: [...] You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.
The question is whether the printed object is to be considered an inferior reproduction/adaptation of the blueprint (like a photocopied book) or just something that the blueprints happened to produce while you were using them (like the output of a program).
The idea of explicitly stating that you aren't under a gag order has been addressed a few times, and I'm not sure it works - can you really not be forced to explicitly keep lying about it? After all, you'd have to lie in response to a direct question as well. Otherwise you could just tell your customers to regularly ask you about gag orders.
However, consider this: If you are not under a gag order, then it is not illegal to lie and say you are. (Except under oath.) Yet if you are under a gag order, saying you are would be illegal. Thus, if you publically and untruthfully state (in messages or on your website) that you are under a gag order, then an actual gag order would force you to remove that statement. That removal then becomes the warning.
The gag order couldn't reasonably force you to tell people about it and not tell people about it.
Well, they know who they sent the letter to, so they could trace it back by definition.
The only way to leak it and have a chance of avoiding the consequences might be to engineer some kind of plausible security breach. Briefcase with documents gets stolen/left on a train; network gets compromised, etc. Even so, if the timing is suspicious, you'd probably be in deep crap.
"Probability"? Your claim is based on a model of reality where all airline passengers roll percentage dice to determine if they are terrorists. 80-year-old white grandmother - probability A. 20-year-old minority male - probability B.
- Any non-random selection algorithm is a known algorithm. This is obvious, because if the TSA is going to profile, they're going to profile the same way you would, and for the same reason. - That means a terrorist group knows an older white person is going to pass where a younger black or middle-eastern person is not. - There are Muslims (and potential Muslim terrorists - and terrorists of any other religion) with all kinds of skin colors. People keep their ideology in their brain, not on their skin.
Slashdot Mirror
Peter Capaldi is credited on IMDB as follows:
That means if the newspaper had been sold at that price including its liabilities, the buyer should have received $40 million. Woah.
And permits building magtubes, don't forget that.
...
The article doesn't clarify.
Live Action GTA
Quick, we need to capture some breeding pairs and start a repopulation program.
I guess you didn't need a supercomputer for that forecast.
(In particular, if you can put pressure on the provider, why bother forcing them to use weak encryption and then wiretapping? Forcing them to give you direct access to servers and connection data would be simpler.)
In that case, indeed, no amount of encryption will save you.
Now I'm all disappointed and stuff.
maintaining a large package repository is like herding a bag of kittens.
Really? After this headline, it wouldn't even be comforting to be on a different planet!
If Milgram was right, that'd save a lot of hassle.
Notice that the sign says "speed enforced", and not "speed limit enforced".
And there's nothing to enforce speed like being chased by a missile...
"And along with not having any such drones, we definitely have never used them; particularly not on seventeen occasions to date."
The problem is that the CC doesn't cover all use, but reproduction, modification and redistribution. It's not a EULA; it expressly only restricts those uses that would also be restricted by copyright.
The question is whether the printed object is to be considered an inferior reproduction/adaptation of the blueprint (like a photocopied book) or just something that the blueprints happened to produce while you were using them (like the output of a program).
Instead of smartphones, we could have smartwrists and literal palm pilots.
The idea of explicitly stating that you aren't under a gag order has been addressed a few times, and I'm not sure it works - can you really not be forced to explicitly keep lying about it? After all, you'd have to lie in response to a direct question as well. Otherwise you could just tell your customers to regularly ask you about gag orders.
However, consider this: If you are not under a gag order, then it is not illegal to lie and say you are. (Except under oath.) Yet if you are under a gag order, saying you are would be illegal.
Thus, if you publically and untruthfully state (in messages or on your website) that you are under a gag order, then an actual gag order would force you to remove that statement. That removal then becomes the warning.
The gag order couldn't reasonably force you to tell people about it and not tell people about it.
Well, they know who they sent the letter to, so they could trace it back by definition.
The only way to leak it and have a chance of avoiding the consequences might be to engineer some kind of plausible security breach. Briefcase with documents gets stolen/left on a train; network gets compromised, etc. Even so, if the timing is suspicious, you'd probably be in deep crap.
"Probability"? Your claim is based on a model of reality where all airline passengers roll percentage dice to determine if they are terrorists. 80-year-old white grandmother - probability A. 20-year-old minority male - probability B.
- Any non-random selection algorithm is a known algorithm. This is obvious, because if the TSA is going to profile, they're going to profile the same way you would, and for the same reason.
- That means a terrorist group knows an older white person is going to pass where a younger black or middle-eastern person is not.
- There are Muslims (and potential Muslim terrorists - and terrorists of any other religion) with all kinds of skin colors. People keep their ideology in their brain, not on their skin.
Therefore, a biased system can be gamed.
This is a diplomacy check, not combat. Realistically, being the TSA's racial enemy should raise the difficulty, not lower it - just like in real life.
They said sweat, not urine.
(Memorable passwords and geohashing.)
They put forward a proposal that would specifically let them track people who specifically said they don't want to be tracked.
I hope the W3C told them to fuck off in so many words.