"Comments owned by the poster."
Whoever the poster is...
"Comments owned by the poster."
Whoever the poster is...
Which is all he needs. As far as what it means in english (not legalsleaze), yeah, its as hostile as a punch in the nose.
As many drones are equipped with AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, weapons initially designed to destroy tanks, I must politely insist that the resulting damage from a strike would amount to substantially more than a punch in the nose.
Wait just a second. I'll quote directly from the Wikipedia article you referenced. Bold emphasis is mine.
Jane Akre is a former Florida journalist and current editor-in-chief of InjuryBoard.com. She is best known for the whistleblower lawsuit by herself and her husband, Steve Wilson, against Fox Broadcasting Company station WTVT in Tampa, Florida. Akre and Wilson are featured in the 2003 documentary film The Corporation about the same lawsuit.
But wait, there's more.
Akre began her career at a small radio station as a news reporter and occasional disc jockey in 1978. She moved around the country as a news reporter and news anchor until spending some time at CNN. Following her firing from a Tampa-area station, she joined WTVT, a Fox Broadcasting Company affiliate.
Oh, but we're not done yet.
Wilson and Akre planned a four part investigative report on Monsanto's use of rBGH, which prompted Monsanto to write to Roger Ailes, president of Fox News Channel, in an attempt to have the report reviewed for bias and because of the "enormous damage that can be done" as a result of the report. WTVT did not run the report, and later argued in court that the report was not "breakthrough journalism."
Okay, so it's starting to look bad, but let's see if there's anything else. Let's hit that handy hyperlink to the article on WTVT. Uh oh, it contains the following:
WTVT, channel 13, is a television station in Tampa, Florida. It is an owned and operated station of the Fox Broadcasting Company, a subsidiary of the News Corporation. WTVT's studios are located in Tampa, and its transmitter is located in Riverview, Florida.
In light of all this, I would greatly appreciate an explanation for your assertion that this "had nothing to do with Fox News." I'll concede that your other statement regarding it being part of Florida caselaw, not SCOTUS, does hold true though. Half truths... sounds a lot like the problem being described in the first place.
He didn't say he was inventing his own method at all. Your lack of education is showing; there are a plethora of cryptographically sound hashing libraries available. Please research the topic more thoroughly and review available resources such as Crypt::SaltedHash before attempting to dissuade others from following what was not only sound advice, but critical advice for folks who deal with legacy systems and don't even know about salting.
If you feel I'm somehow misguided on this topic, I'd encourage you to speak with folks like Schneier et al before attempting to mount a counter to the aforementioned statements.
That would be the "self updating" part. It should be noted that "updates" can happen more than once in the course of both program execution and the life of any particular computing system. I'll state for the record that my personal view on any compromise is that it's a lot like sex: once you're penetrated, you're fucked. However, that doesn't mean that continuous adaptive updates won't protect a huge number of users.
Given your exceptionally low UID and the supposed credibility that comes with it, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that perhaps you've had one or five too many whiskeys this evening (Lord knows I've had a couple myself). However, the mods that rated your comment "+5 Insightful" should hand in their Critical Thinking Cards ASAP, because in all truthfulness your reply is nothing short of reactionary garbage, minus even the trivial amount of analysis a Fox News correspondent might attempt to apply to the matter at hand.
Posting as a die-hard Debian & BSD user, btw. Also, greetz from the 404. Wildcat4lyfe.
I'm sitting here writing a Perl 5 application right now. In fact, it's comprised of several daemons that work cooperatively to handle various tasks, all written in Perl. The user side is delivered via a pool of FastCGI daemons (served by nginx, fwiw), written in Perl. My "day job" employer uses Perl. I've got friends working as programmers in the public sector in a variety of areas of state and federal government and education, and they write Perl code frequently. I've got other friends in the financial services industry, and they're still writing new Perl code. In the not too distant past, I served in the Navy. Perl is alive and well there, too. These all add up to billions of dollars worth of budgets.
In short, the fact that you haven't seen it either means your exposure is more limited than you're claiming, or you're simply not paying enough attention.
OTOH if BSD-only advocates would stop spreading half-truths (to be generous) like "free for any purpose, unlike the GPL" if they want to see fewer incidents of this nature.
Wait, you're trying to tell me that the people that perpetrate such incidents (attempting to hijack code to make it GPL only) aren't responsible for their own actions, or even that the BSD advocates bear any responsibility for making such people make bad decisions? If so, you've lost all credibility, and I'll just go ahead and ignore you from here on out.
Thinking the death of Bin Laden will change anything is like thinking the death of Roosevelt in 1945 meant the end of WW2. (For those lacking in history, it didn't).
In the past, I've regarded your posts largely with a healthy measure of respect, including cases where I may have disagreed with some details but largely agreed with the underlying premise. In this case, however, I must wholeheartedly call "bullshit." Roosevelt didn't start WW2, and to use him in anything resembling a historical context in this case is disrespectful at best, and hateful and/or utterly idiotic at worst. I'm sincerely hoping your actual intended interpretation didn't amount to this, because after reading the excerpt about ten times, it still sounds like it to me. In other words, I'm hoping you were a few drinks deep when you typed that, and are willing to clarify your intent.
I have much to say regarding the balance of your post, but it is already three hours past my bedtime. Perhaps I will reply again tomorrow.
I did in fact spend a considerable amount of time reading through the bill. With regard to presumption of guilt, the way things are wording truly does not appear to be any different from fairly standard civil proceedings. Here's the specific text:
Infringement notice as evidence of copyright infringement “(1) In proceedings before the Tribunal, an infringement notice is conclusive evidence of the following: “(a) that each incidence of file sharing identified in the notice constituted an infringement of the right owner's copyright in the work identified: “(b) that the information recorded in the infringement notice is correct: “(c) that the infringement notice was issued in accordance with this Act. “(2) An account holder may submit evidence, or give reasons, that show that any 1 or more of the presumptions in subsection (1) do not apply with respect to any particular infringement identified in an infringement notice. “(3) If an account holder submits evidence or gives reasons as referred to in subsection (2), the rights owner must satisfy the Tribunal that the particular presumption or presumptions are correct.
Subsection (3) appears to exist for good reason; if the rights owner can't actually prove the legitimacy of the claim under scutiny, it's no good. Furthermore, should the rights holder overtly lie, there are certainly legal consequences for doing so. That said, if the accused makes no claim to the contrary (likely by not appearing at the proceedings at all), there's no reason for the tribunal not to issue a judgement in favor of the claimant.
Now I'll address the question of attorneys being allowed at the proceedings. Here's the text I believe you're referencing:
“122M If hearing is held “(1) If a hearing is held, sections 211 to 224 apply, other than sections 213(1) to (3) and 214(1) and (2) sections 213(2) and 214(1). “(2) Every party to the proceedings may appear personally and be heard. “(3) A party may not be represented at a hearing by a representative, except as follows: “(a) a corporation or unincorporated body of persons may be represented by an officer, employee, or member of the corporation or body, or a person who holds a majority interest in it: “(b) a person jointly liable or entitled with another or others may be represented by 1 of the persons jointly liable or entitled: “(c) a partnership may be represented by an employee of a partnership: “(d) a minor, or a person under a disability, may be represented by another person: “(e) if the Tribunal is satisfied that, for sufficient cause, a party is unable to appear in person or is unable to present his or her case adequately, the party may be represented by a representative approved by the Tribunal: “(f) if it appears to the Tribunal to be proper in all the circumstances to allow the party to be represented, the party may be represented by a representative approved by the Tribunal. “(4) A representative may not be a lawyer, unless the Tribunal gives leave.
Bold emphasis is mine for easier reference. A parallel might be small claims court in the U.S.; in a few jurisdictions, attorneys aren't allowed, but it must be stressed that neither party can be represented by an attorney in that case (as is the case with the NZ law). There's also a cap for the amount a judgement can be entered for. In U.S. courts, this ranges from $3,000 to $10,000 USD. This bill references a figure of $15,000 NZD. Using today's currency exchange rates, that's a cap of 11,895 USD.
In short, you may have read the bill, but you did a poor job of actually analyzing it. I'll note that I'm a free software author myself, and choose to publish my code under BSD licensing 99% of the time. However, I respect the rights of others, and I respect the authority of the courts designated to rule on matters such as these. Thus, I am neither a shill, nor misinformed.
"We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."