I think this is the first step of their long term plan to produce their own version of the Nutrimatic Drinks Dispenser from HHGTTG. There are parallels- having had "coffee" in England, I think I know where the inspiration for the sludge served up by this machine comes from. Adding DRM will allow them to prepare the sludge optimally, with the highest performance and safety possible.
To me the most surprising part of this is that MSNBC was actually covering real news like the NSA story in the first place. That they would cut away from real news to cover that tripe- no surprise at all.
The team responsible for that review... included QDDR senior leadership, a fourteen-member executive council, four drafters and editors, and a QDDR leadership team of at least twenty people from the Departments of State and Defense, the USAID, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, including an “Office Management Specialist,” several “Staff Assistant[s],” and an advisor serving as a Presidential Management Fellow.
So it's already been distributed to over 40 people, probably well over. Has Judge Huvelle looked for this document on Google yet?
Except Weird Al always asks permission, even though he doesn't have to. From Wikipedia: - Under the "fair use" provision of U.S. copyright law, affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, artists such as Yankovic do not need permission to record a parody. However, as a personal rule and as a means of maintaining good relationships, Yankovic has always sought permission from the original artist before commercially releasing a parody. He claims that only about two to three percent of the artists he approaches for permission deny his requests, while many of the rest who approve consider Yankovic's parodies to be a badge of honor and rite of passage in the music industry. - Hope this clears this up.
How innocent were these bystanders- they might have had cameras, which would make them more dangerous to the police than Mr. Broadnax. If I were them I wouldn't be surprised to see charges of interfering with police, theft of government property (the bullet that hit each of them), tampering with evidence (where did that third bullet go?), and felony trespassing, among others.
Alternatively, they could be charged following the computer "hacker-security" model: since these bystanders have shown how poor the marksmanship of these police is, they must now pay for rudimentary firearms training for the police. If not for the action of these bystanders (getting shot) the lack of skill and proper training would never have been a problem for the police.
I'm surprised that they would settle on an infringement of this magnitude. The numbers work out to an original order of 3 servers and 90 devices. The army then installed it on 100 servers (33x what they ordered) and 9000 devices (100x what they ordered).
How can there be such a huge disparity between what they ordered and what they needed? It almost seems like the infringement was planned ahead of time. Would this count as willful infringement?
Just because a losing a privilege would make ones life difficult doesn't make it a right. But I do think that because losing a drivers license would have such a huge negative impact they certainly shouldn't be taken away lightly. Traveling freely is a right, but that doesn't mean you always get ignore the rules of the road.
What if someone in your situation were found to be repeatedly driving drunk/recklessly? Should they still be allowed to drive?
That law [relating to implied consent], established in 1961, says anyone issued a driver’s license has automatically agreed to chemical testing during a DWI arrest and the results can be used against them in court. The way I read this is that the only way to legally refuse the chemical testing is if they are also driving without a license. Is this really how the state wants to incent drivers to act?
Tying what many people consider to be an essential object to implied consent is problematic. For most people, a driver's license doubles as an ID card, something nearly everyone needs to access employment and a host of other services. While an ID card can be obtained on its own, the lack of a valid license opens drivers up to many other charges if they choose to operate a vehicle, another indispensable part of many people's lives. Sorry but that's a bunch of BS. However 'many people consider' a license essential, driving is still a privilege. A state-issued non-drivers ID card works as well as a license. As far as being 'opened up to many other charges if they choose to operate a vehicle' um, well how about not operating a vehicle without a license? That's still a law last time I checked. If you choose to violate a law then you will be open to related charges, I think that's a fairly fundamental principle of law. If driving is truly an 'indispensable' part of a persons life then they shouldn't abuse the privilege.
Warrantless searches may be a problem, but including the above in your argument does nothing to help the case against them.