Posts by Ian Michael Gumby

@Ned

Look,

Guilt or Innocence will happen when Manning faces trial.

1) Who cares what Manning pleads? If he pleads guilty, then he goes straight to sentencing. So he pleads innocent. Thus its a moot point. He could even admit his guilt and still plead innocent and have his lawyers argue an affirmative defense.

2) What Manning did? This statement should read what are the charges being levied against Manning. Your statement is a presumption of Manning's guilt.

3) What evidence? That's the nice thing. You have a trial where the evidence is shown in court. With respect to you and every other Tom, Dick and Harry, unless you're in the chain of command, JAG, etc... the odds are you won't see the evidence. Having said that... since the US Military/Government can't keep their lips shut about Seal Team 6, I guess you may have your wish, after the trial.

4) Damages? That's actually irrelevant. But don't take my word, talk to a military lawyer who might explain it to you. (Hint: Someone steals classified material and passes on to an undercover agent. Since no secrets were actually passed on to any foreign agent, one could argue no harm had been committed....)

5) What did he do? Again this is a presumption of guilt and re-iterates #2, and that's what are the charges Manning faces.

6) Dennis the Mennis, former 'boy mayor' of Cleveland, and complete nut job who tried to sue his congressional cafeteria... he has no right or business in this affair. Its a Military issue. He's not in the chain of command. (Thank God for that...)

(Oh and I doubt you'd like what I would say about the UN inspector... you do realize that Manning is a soldier and not some dissident.)

7) I suggest you consult with a military attorney on this one...

Please remember Manning is not a civilian and you can't apply civilian criminal law in a Military case.

How?

Statute of limitations in a civil as well as criminal case deal with when charges are brought.

McKinnon had been charged in the US and is fighting extradition. So no, no statute of limitations would apply.

Here's a hypothetical example of how statute of limitations could apply. Suppose you, Jim Carter, committed a security breach against the US Government. You don't get caught. 20 years pass and you write a book where you detail your exploits. If the statute of limitation for your crime was 10 years, you couldn't be tried for your crime. ( I don't know the exact statute for committing a crime like that, just using an example...)

This definitely had gone on long enough, but its not because of the US or British courts, but because of McKinnon. If you want to blame anyone, blame McKinnon.

@Jolyon. Ok...

Was not sure what you were trying to say...

I concur...

This 'legal' doc puts Wikileaks right in the crosshairs of the US govt prosecution.

It's not a newspaper and first amendment protection has it's limits.

By creating this document, Assange establishes mens rea ?sp? That their primary motive is for profit.

Wikileaks is saying to their volunteers that if you leak a document from Wikileaks, that they have the right to sue you for monetary damages because they recognize that the information has value.

It also refuses to indemnify their 'staff'.

Talk about a self destructive messiah complex...

Huh? No theft occurs...

Look, I'll make this as simple as possible.

US copyright law allows someone who bought a CD to make a copy for personal use.

Here's how Google can most likely legally introduce a streaming service and still profit from it...

You sign up and upload your music. Assuming that you have a legitimate copy, when you upload a song, google can check to see if the recording exists on their server, and take a hash of the file. If it matches, the retain one copy of the file and then just track the ownership of the file. If they don't match, then they keep multiple versions.

Google makes money by tracking you and your musical tastes. The more they know, the better the targettingof ads and the more they can charge advertisers. At least in theory. At some point there is going to be some diminishing returns... But I digress.

The point is that they could offer such a service and still be legal and not have to worry about the record industry...

In fact, they could use such a service to find out who the 'freetards' are...now that would be a selling point to the record industry...

doperative... its not that simple.

Look,

In a lawsuit Oracle only gets one bite at Google and there's a lot of money on the table....

Oracle already got the judge to shoot down Google's claims that their interpretation of what Sun's lawyers wrote meant that they could do what they did. (Wording of the patents ...)

Now Oracle has to take out the 'Apache defense'.

Oracle has to go through the motions and do their due diligence to counter everything that Google claimed as part of their defense.

If you go back and read Google's initial and then subsequent responses to Oracle's complaint, Oracle has to address all of the issues.

If Oracle finds anything... Its bad for Google. And yes, punitive damages would apply.

@ foo_bar_baz ... You just don't get it...

If you're in the military you don't want to break the law.

Unlike civilian courts and law, the military law can and is harsher. As a civilian you have certain rights. Under military law, you don't necessarily have all of the same rights.

There's a lot of latitude on what the military can do to you.

Perhaps Lewis could write an article explaining why.

There was a time when Manning would have been shot after a quick and speedy trial for what he's accused of doing.

And there's a difference between a brig and a military prison, in terms of staffing... but I won't bore you with the details.

@Dan Paul

You do realize that there is a difference between Java SE (Desktop version) and Java ME (Mobile device version) right?

That while SE is free, ME is not?

That all of the other mobile device makers license Java from Sun/Oracle?

That Google didn't want to pay Oracle so they morphed their own and in doing so, violated Oracle's patents and copyrights?

That's the ticket!

This is all a CIA plot which is directed by ZOG which happens to control all aspects of communication.

Do you not realize how silly you all sound?

The guy was a crim. He knew what he was doing was wrong. 'Camming' may not have been a crime, but putting his 'work' out on the net clearly is. Can you say copyright infringement?

Get real.

What's the odds that if you break one crime, you're not going to break another.

BTW, what did the guy OD on anyways?

Not exactly...

First Cloudera is like RedHat because they were the first to vision how to monetize Hadoop support.

Cloudera is currently the only ones offering controlled releases along with technical support and consulting (professional services).

There's another company maprtech.com that has their own hadoop release, but they don't appear to have the depth of staff or consulting. (including training)

Yahoo! would be a good addition to Cloudera and both will continue to thrive in the marketplace.

Yahoo! has a leg up in that they have already dealt with security and are looking at MR2. Plus they have deeper pockets than Cloudera. (At least until Cloudera does an IPO)

So while I agree with you, I don't share your opinion and logic.

Not false information...

Here's the interesting thing.

The underlying information was actually factual.

OCZ also did misrepresent some key numbers in their report which caused the individual to question the veracity of the information.

OCZ said that they were correcting the reports however they do stand by their stated positive statements. (Meaning even though the numbers weren't correct we believe that we were correct in stating our future looks good).

Because the facts were correct, its not a black and white situation.

Did the individual who put out the report indicate that they held a position and that they were currently shorting the stock?

If they gave any disclosure about their position, they are in fact clean and no laws were broken.

If they didn't disclose that they held a position... things get a bit murkier.

@Lee

"So, basically you are saying that because there are worse countries out there than the US it therefore exonerates the US from committing their little crimes?"

No, When US forces break the law, they are tried and punished. How many countries do that?

So there is no exoneration.

However there's a lot of gray area when you talk about 'crimes'.

Some things which you consider to be a crime may not actually be a crime.

Using the example of the 1969 Pulitzer prize winning photo of the South Vietnamese General shooting a man in 'civilian' clothing, you would call it a crime. However, the Viet Cong prisoner was a member of an Assassination hit team who just killed one of his officer's family and under the law, because he wasn't in an uniform he could be shot on sight. Meaning the actions of the officer was legal. Brutal, sure, but I'll be honest enough to say that if I was in the same position of that Vietnamese General, I'd pull the trigger too.

Yet were Graham alive back in the 60's, he'd probably be sitting with Hanoi Jane and cry foul. Of course he wouldn't be alone. Why? Because when the photo and the CBS movie footage was shown, it was shown without the proper context and people jumped to the wrong conclusion In context, I'm sure I'm not alone in my opinion.

And that's the thing. Governments like the US, UK, etc ... all do nasty things so that we can sleep a little easier at night.

Now I use the Viet Nam war as an example because its 1) Far enough back in time that it forces people to think, 2) Its another era where the US didn't always act above board.

Unfortunately Lee you need a dose of reality. Its really a nasty scary world out there.

Hmmm no.

No sealed law.

Its called trying to gain a competitive advantage.

All of the 3 are guilty of war driving when they monitor and report on broadcasted SSIDs.

Why? Because the SSIDs are broadcast-ed for a different purpose so that the 3 are actually committing an illegal wire tap.

@M Gale

My wi-fi router broadcasts it SSID with the expectation that this will be used by my or permitted users to find my network so that they can connect to it.

Accessing and using this information outside of its intended purpose is illegal.

Now here's a funny thing...

Suppose you have an android phone or iPhone where they are capturing information on SSIDs in your area. Suppose they find an unencrypted wi-fi.... now how hard would it be for the phone to automatically connect to the wi-fi network (if not already connected) to send data back out of channel of the edge/3G/4G network so that its not charged to you?

Color me paranoid but its possible...

@ziggy

So you attack the poster but not the content?

Look, I'll spell it out to you.

If I'm a cop and I have to pull my weapon, I'm going to shoot to kill. Period. You will be dead. A gun is a lethal option.

Stun guns are 'less than lethal'. That means that assuming that the perp is a normal healthy male, getting shot will subdue him and not cause permanent long term damage.

So while you and everyone else trot out the number of deaths, lets look at the number of people still alive because the police had the option to use less than lethal force.

As I stated in other posts... Rubber bullets can kill. Bean Bag rounds can kill. Taser and other electric devices can kill. But if used correctly their goal is not to kill.

Is that a hard concept to understand?

Please understand that I support the proper use of tasers but I also condemn those who abuse their position of authority and abuse the use of a taser. K?

Yo! Suburban Inmate...

The position of the cell towers are pretty exact.

First they are at a fixed location and do not move.

Second when setting up a base station you can get the GPS fix via much more accurate kit than you normally buy. Surveyor kit can be made to be as accurate as 3cm if you take up the time to set up a ground station for 48-72 hours and or tie in to a radio signal from a known location. (accuracy would then depend on how accurate of a clock you have in your instrument.)

(Use GPS to get a rough position, the use the clock signal from a known location to get a more accurate position based on relative clock timing signals. Over time you can get the mean average position....)

Maybe, maybe not...

DB2 isn't an OS.

Unless you can see the patent in its entirety, it is difficult to decide.

Again the burden is to disprove the patent outside of the lawsuit which can be expensive an if you're not successful you just wasted a lot of good money and also set up a precedence which will make it harder to fight the patent in a different lawsuit.

Without passing judgment on this specific case, once again the USPTO is flawed when it gave out software patents along with business process patents.

@mhenriday

You are mistaken.

I suggest you read some of the articles written in the NYT, specifically the one written by an editor of the NYT who said that Assange edited the footage and put it out under a very prejudicial title.

Of course I also suggest that you also read my post and follow the link to the story about the Pulitzer prize winning photo (1969) that was taken during the Tet Offensive in 1968.

You do remember this thing called the 'Viet Nam War' which was technically a policing action when the US bailed the French Imperialists out as they lost their colonies in Asia... Dien Bien Phu ring a bell?

But I digress.

Since you wish to question me, let me ask you what was the RoE at the time of the incident?

Why was the 'copter doing in the area at the time?

Why were the press corps not up in arms about this so called 'massacre' of their own? I mean innocent cameramen getting torn up by a 30mm chain gun?

When you start to look objectively (meaning trying to understand both sides, along with what War is...) you tend to see things in perspective.

Oh and one slight correction... On the Apache its a 30mm chain gun if memory serves. Meant more for taking out vehicles and armor, along with re-enforced positions. Blackhawks have door gunners. The OP that I was responding with said 50mm and wasn't sure what he was blathering about.

If you don't grok the meaning of RoE, or why the 'chopper was in the area, then you will never understand what you saw, even in the edited footage.

As long as this issue has been out. I've always said that you have to take what information you want to process and put it in context. Without context, you will more than likely jump to the wrong conclusion.