The question is, do the Borg assimilate insane monomaniacs? With Alexander, they're going to get a cyberdisease vector aimed directly at their mainframe core.
Well, I always have peace of mind after visiting my proctologist. But that doesn't mean I want to have the government's finger jammed up my ass 24/7, going "Yup, still good....no problemo buddy...wait, wait, oops false alarm, little gas there...oookay, still good..."
I'm trying to understand this distinction...this is something like the Chicago Transit Authority forming an IP Enforcement Unit? Or the Bumfuck, Kansas Police Department asserting extraordinary rendition powers over copyright pirates in Hong Kong? A joke, in other words...really, couldn't the MAFIAAs afford a scarier police force?
While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of any information or other material contained in or associated with this document, it is provided on the basis that PIPCU and its staff, either individually or collectively, accept no responsibility for any loss, damage, cost or expense of whatever kind arising directly or indirectly from or in connection with the use by any person, whomsoever, of any such information or material.
In other words, we're the law, do what we say or we'll file complaints with your licensing authority. Oh, and if we're wrong, you're on your own.
The only proper response to this letter is "Piss off."
Innovatio's lawyer, Matthew McAndrews, says this ruling "opens the door for Innovatio to potentially license hundreds of millions of units sold by numerous Wi-Fi chip suppliers."
Except behind that door are not the timid rabbit lawyers that are all the small business owners can afford, but the rabid timberwolf lawyers of corporations.
A side note to the management of scientific papers - and one of the main arguments against open access ('OA') publishing - is peer-review: the process of weeding out 'junk' articles from 'good' articles.
Subscription-based publishers argue that OA publishers are merely check-cashing operations - no reviewing, just send 'em money and they'll post anything you send online. OA publishers claim subscription-based publishers game the peer-review process by sending potentially sensational articles to sympathetic reviewers. Michael Eisen writes about this scientific knife fight.
Peer-review seems to be a fractal of a larger issue online: believability and reputation. Perhaps the science community would benefit from looking at reputation systems built into online commerce (e.g., eBay) and personal reviewing of the reviewers (e.g., upvoting/downvoting).
Does the gym get a lot of non-real persons signing up for accounts, enough so they actually have a policy of checking? Are robots hogging all the good equipment? Why would a robot need exercise? Or maybe it's badgers. Who in their right mind would want to share a sauna with a soggy, overheated badger?
...traditional households -- two-parent families involved with their children, schools, churches, sports, civic groups, and such.
Sorry buddy, but you're flashing back to one of those 50's TV shows - Leave It To Beaver, Father Knows Best, The Donna Reed Show. They weren't real, you know.
Coming soon: if the phone company allows you (a terrorist) to talk with your mom (another terrorist) then THEY must be terrorists. If the NSA doesn't act against the phone companies (potential terrorists) then they themselves must be terrorists.
I could go on, but the meds are kicking in. Ahhh......
There's a secret clause in 18 USC § 1030 - section (I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you)(None of your fucking business):
(5) Courts considering prosecutions under this title shall meet a two-step test of eligibility:
(A) A vindictive or publicity-seeking prosecutor, or, a prosecutor who has made a deal with the Devil or lessor imps may be considered, provided validity of the Dark Agreement, and
(B) A technologically-illiterate, insane, or East Texas Judge.
This is so true. If you waterboard logic, it will tell you that not only is investigating investigative techniques illogical, you can make it put on a Shirley Temple dress and say - with an absolutely straight face - that the government cares for your rights.
It seems the government, and the DOJ in particular, is learning blowback assessment: if an investigation might turn up something bad, don't do the investigation. No investigation, no bad results, no need for a cover-up.
This is a rather remarkably frank admission from a senior DOJ official that there is a bias in disseminating public information, based on the publication and/or reporter (and note here that USA Today is a 'real newspaper' with 'real reporters', not some scruffy long-hair's blog).
I wonder what the exchange would be if the reporter said the story is now about the DOJ's refusal to give information specifically to USA Today, and would Mr. Fallon care to comment? I'd buy a paper to read THAT story.
If ISPs can be considered the gateway by users to rogue sites online...
Consider the unconscious and absolute arrogance of that statement. Consider the use of the one trigger word every US politician has been trained to associate with drug use: gateway.
ISPs: you are their next target. Buckle up, because these RIAA thugs have no belief in collateral damage.
Do people who retire from public life just stop paying attention to the world around them? Surely Mr. Hayden must realize that it is 2013, not 1953 - Russia is not the USSR; they have cable and McDonald's, traffic jams and credit cards now. Mr. Snowden might become depressed at the lack of Walmarts, but isolated, lonely, depressed and alcoholic? Only if he's rooming with Mr. Hayden.
The National Security Agency is not spying in order to round up Obama's political opposition, and Government Communications Headquarters is not listening to Internet traffic to help London's bank...
On the post: NSA's Keith Alexander Doubles Down On His Plan To Spy On Wall Street To 'Protect' Wall Street
Re:
On the post: James Clapper Says 'Peace Of Mind' Trumps Effectiveness In Evaluating NSA Surveillance
On the post: London Police Order Registrars To Shut Down A Bunch Of Websites Without Any Legal Basis; Threaten Registrars If They Don't Comply
Re: This is not the police force you think it is
On the post: London Police Order Registrars To Shut Down A Bunch Of Websites Without Any Legal Basis; Threaten Registrars If They Don't Comply
Fucking Weasels
In other words, we're the law, do what we say or we'll file complaints with your licensing authority. Oh, and if we're wrong, you're on your own.
The only proper response to this letter is "Piss off."
On the post: WiFi Patent Troll Told That Each License Should Be Less Than 10 Cents
Except behind that door are not the timid rabbit lawyers that are all the small business owners can afford, but the rabid timberwolf lawyers of corporations.
Knock knock, Mr. McAndrews.
On the post: NSA Trying Hard To Compromise Tor, But It's Still Mostly Safe
On the post: Fighting To Free Knowledge Paid For By Taxpayers -- And Winning
Re: Who to manage this output
Subscription-based publishers argue that OA publishers are merely check-cashing operations - no reviewing, just send 'em money and they'll post anything you send online. OA publishers claim subscription-based publishers game the peer-review process by sending potentially sensational articles to sympathetic reviewers. Michael Eisen writes about this scientific knife fight.
Peer-review seems to be a fractal of a larger issue online: believability and reputation. Perhaps the science community would benefit from looking at reputation systems built into online commerce (e.g., eBay) and personal reviewing of the reviewers (e.g., upvoting/downvoting).
On the post: Gym Thinks New Member Isn't A Real Person; Drains Nearly $1,000 From Her Checking Account To 'Verify'
On the post: Apparently, The Real Problem For Journalism Is Single Welfare Mothers Who Don't Speak English
On the post: Three Months After It Cleared The 100K Signature Threshold, 'Pardon Snowden' Petition Still Unanswered
Cue the Legal Weasel
On the post: NSA Defenders Need To Learn: Trust Is Something You Earn, Not Legislate
Re: Strawman
If you talk to your mom, you're a terrorist.
Coming soon: if the phone company allows you (a terrorist) to talk with your mom (another terrorist) then THEY must be terrorists. If the NSA doesn't act against the phone companies (potential terrorists) then they themselves must be terrorists.
I could go on, but the meds are kicking in. Ahhh......
On the post: Court Tells Asst. Principal That Students' Fake Social Media Accounts Don't Violate CFAA Or Racketeering Laws
Not just anybody can use the CFAA
On the post: DOJ Scrambles To Try To Explain Why It Never Investigated Systematic Misrepresentations By NSA To FISA Court
Re: It is SOOOO simple you guys...
On the post: DOJ Scrambles To Try To Explain Why It Never Investigated Systematic Misrepresentations By NSA To FISA Court
It's not a good thing.
On the post: DOJ To Reporter: We Can Prove You're Wrong, But We Want To Embarrass You, So We'll Wait
I wonder what the exchange would be if the reporter said the story is now about the DOJ's refusal to give information specifically to USA Today, and would Mr. Fallon care to comment? I'd buy a paper to read THAT story.
On the post: Entrepreneur Fights Back Against Patent Troll; Patent Troll Accuses Entrepreneur Of Hate Crimes
Re: It's a religion
On the post: RIAA Whines To Congress That It Doesn't Like Google's Search Results
ISPs: you are their next target. Buckle up, because these RIAA thugs have no belief in collateral damage.
On the post: Former NSA Boss Hayden Says Snowden Likely To Become An Alcoholic Because He's 'Troubled' And 'Morally Arrogant'
On the post: Author Claims We've Learned Enough From The Snowden Docs And The Rest Should Be Destroyed
On the post: Johns Hopkins Tells Security Researcher To Remove Blog Post About NSA Encryption Attacks From University Server
Re: Not surprised
Next >>