Too bad that our universe is neither AdS (the cosmological constant is positive) nor ten-dimensional as in the papers.
In Germany, a lawyer sending a cease-and-desist letter can ask to get paid for his services from the recipient of the letter. However, the fees associated with this (making up most of the €250 in this case) are essentially lump sums set by law that are unrelated to the acutal amount of time spent for each case. If a lawyer sends out thousands of letters, this means huge profits, which are often shared with the rightsholder through illegal kickback schemes.
This is a well-known problem, but most lawmakers (who were often legal professionals before), prosecutors, and judges see copyright violations as the bigger issue so they tend to welcome this process as a private-sector law enforcement despite the fraud that is usually associated with it.
Encrypting your stuff is all good and nice, but you should use a piece of software that has been written using established secure coding standards. Just because it's open source doesn't mean it's also secure (cf. PHP, OpenSSL). Rather, being open source is a necessary, but not a sufficient criterion in the evaluation of security-critical applications.
Given the track record of this particular application, I'm a bit skeptical whether one should really use it for anything serious.
The trouble with mental health is that there isn't any kind of magic bullet treatment like there can be with just about any other disease.
Pulling those people out of poverty should help a lot (as it does with a lot of illnesses).
Yes, I feel so locked in, what with my choices of Ubuntu, or Ubuntu Gnome, or Kubuntu, or Lubuntu, or Xubuntu, or any of the many derivatives of Ubuntu that's out there. And it's all just an "sudo apt-get install" away from appearing on my machine.
Unfortunately, you lose security support when you do this.
The concept that "Free software" (as in copyleft) is more free than more permissive licenses (BSD, MIT, etc. just to name two) is contradictory from step 1.
The FSF considers permissive license to be free software. They do not consider copyleft licenses to be "more free" than permissive licenses. Please stop spreading false propaganda.
And let's not hyperbolically describe this as "holding the users hostage," okay? Users are free to leave the course whenever they want
Not if the forced study participation occurs halfway through the course when users have already invested significant ressources. As long as the annoyance being asked for is less than than the total amount of work invested, people will stay in whether they like it or not, making this approach highly unethical (unless it's clearly communicated before peple enroll).
This is in addition to the harm caused to remote services that may cost $35 billion over the next three years. Then of course there are the ways the NSA has made ID theft easier. ID theft cost Americans $1.52 billion in 2011, to say nothing of the time wasted in solving ID theft issues — some of that figure is certainly attributable to holes the NSA helped build.
The NSA, its policies, and the politicians who support the same are directly responsible for massive losses of money and jobs which might cause one to wonder, why do these people hate America and Americans so much?"
Is there anything that they won't use the 'think of the children' line on?
Sure, when dealing with pedophiles in the intelligence services.
99.9% of what intelligence agencies do doesn't directly affect "risks to human life". It's spying to get basic information that allows you to know when to launch an operation that actually does influence those risks. You don't find out that some Arab Sheik is a threat to the US unless you're spying on Arab Sheiks. Since Arab Sheiks are hardly the only threat (the Taliban, for example, aren't Arab), the US has to be able to spy on anyone if it thinks something fishy's going on.
But that's not what is happening right now. The US are spying on everyone, no matter whether there is something fishy going on, there might be something fishy going on, or there is nothing fishy going on. Do you seriously believe that there is any realistic chance that any of the NATO allies is going to launch war or state-supported terrorist attacks against the US in the forseeable future? Do you seriously believe that everyone using Google or Facebook is up to something fishy?
I see you put the word "virtual" in parenthesis, perhaps hoping we wouldn't notice it, or if we did, think it really isn't relevant.
From a legal point of view, it is mostly irrelevant and this is not limited to the US or even common law jurisdictions. Factual impossibility is not a valid defense when charged with the attempt of a crime.
This is actually why the Snowden as traitor thing will simply never go away. No matter what. He could bring George Washington back to life to vouch for him, and nobody who serves the US Government (especially the military) would believe that shit. Some previous leaks advanced the Constitution by stopping mass surveillance. This leak is an attack on the entire practice of spying, and since combat troops find spy-data really useful in their jobs (particularly the bits of their jobs that involve not being killed), Sbnowden will never be able to live this down.
Would you care to explain this point? As far as I can tell, neither Snowden nor the journalists he has cooperated with have stated anywhere that they want to abolish intelligence practices completely. Nor have they done anything that endangered ongoing operations with imminant risk for human life.
That's actually missing a key piece of information. Patent licenses can be very narrow in scope, which allows an owner to charge different parties for different aspects how a device uses a patented technology.
Does anybody know why I wouldn't need a separate licensing deal with MPEG LA if I built a web application using WebRTC? Their typical licensing agreement (as used in Windows and Flash, for instance) does not extend to third-party applications that use the codecs through APIs.
Science and AAAS (of which I'm presently ashamed to be a member) should be blasted for publishing this tripe. It needs to be retracted, immediately. If they want to have the slightest shred of credibility here, they should at least conduct scientifically rigorous stings.
I also doubt that they adhered to their own guidelines for Human research studies:
Informed consent must be obtained for studies on humans after the nature and possible consequences of the studies were explained. All research on humans must have IRB approval.
... the story only shows that German media outlets are not familiar with US entry regulations. He says that he was denied a visa last year, which automatically disqualifies him from the visa waiver program. This is just a garden-variety ESTA issue, and most likely has nothing to do with his stance of the NSA surveillance.