That's not what happened. GoldieBlox re-tooled lyrics to suit their purpose - wholly commercial - and are hiding behind "fair use" as a woe-is-little-old-me defense that rightfully will get its teeth kicked in by the courts.
By which court, exactly? It sounds like you're suggesting the Beastie Boys go fetch their big brother to beat up GoldieBlox, without realizing GoldieBlox's big brother (the Supreme Court, in this case) is the current reigning MMA world champion...
You're entirely right a lower court can completely "misinterpret" (ie: ignore) existing law and precedent and find against GoldieBlox in this case, but courts make crazy decisions all the time. So GoldieBlox is doing the smart thing and heading this off at the pass--getting their day in court immediately instead of having a legal threat hung over their head. Considering they've got cases from the Supreme Court of the United States to back them up, I think they're justified in feeling confident about their chances...
I'm gonna paraphrase Rikuo here in my own response: You (Internet Zen Master) have every right to dislike this company's use of Beastie Boys music in their advertisements. You have every right to say you dislike it, to send them angry letters, to start a petition, to hand out pamphlets, whatever. You have the right to refuse to buy their products and call for a boycott.
But no one has the right to use the law to forbid them from doing it. And EVERYONE should be disappointed and disgusted by the attempted legal strong-arming that attempted to do that.
If the Boys and their record label don't appreciate the parody, they're welcome to state their case, and then it would be up to the public to decide who they want to support. But by bringing legal threats into this, they deserve any legal repercussions as well as the scorn and vilification coming their way.
Guess I'm a little sensitive to respecting the wishes of the artist after having several of my fellow artists getting their artwork stolen by hacks who repost it ON THE SAME SITE and claim it as their own work after removing the creator's signature, or reposting it on places like Tumblr without the artist's permission.
But, see, what you're describing there is plagiarism--a practice universally reviled.
I can't see how an intellectually honest person can compare a Constitutionally protected creative endeavor like parody to plagiarism...
And yes, I know "Weird Al" gets "authorization" for his parodies, but the record will show that's out of respect for the original artists, not due to any legal necessity, as evidenced by the hissy fit over Amish Paradise.
Someone mail the Beastie Boys (and their lawyers) the collected works of "Weird Al" Yankovich, a DVD of Spaceballs, and a nice, dog-eared paperback of Bored of Rings. At the very least, it should keep them busy for a week or two while adults discuss this...
Gah... Don't hit Enter instead of Tab in the subject box...
Seriously, though. Questioning Diffie's credibility on cryptography? What's next, New Egg will call summon the ghost of Dijkstra and Fenster will claim he's not a real programmer, because he didn't like using computers?
If the Polk County, FL Sherrif's office has the resources to send deputies to Colorado to arrest a guy, they obviously could stand for some budget cuts. Money's tight everywhere, after all, and they obviously have a surplus.
Why is law enforcement so uninterested in getting warrants?
I'd assume that, considering the warrant application goes before a judge in a courtroom type setting, there is a penalty for perjury on a warrant application.
Note that I'm not saying that I believe law enforcement is lying about why they want to track someone, just saying they'd be a lot less willing to track someone on a "hunch" if there was a possibility of being penalized later because the court decides their assumptions were more like fabrications.
Of course, that's the whole point of the warrant process: to make sure extraordinary measures are only used in cases where they are warranted.
By "basic safety protocols weren't followed" he means oil-soaked rags were piled up and placed under a tarp on top of an asphalt roof on a cloudless, 90-degree day. Next to propane tanks.
Then the company tasked with the cleanup (as he said, same one that blew it up), hired laborers without any background check to come into a "secured" federal facility and haul the computers to storage. Cabinets were broken into, purses stolen, anything remotely valuable on desks vanished. This happened the weekend after the explosion, before employees were let back in to leave their personal effects. Then, they brought in another group to move out the furniture/filing cabinets/etc. and bring them to temporary storage. Those cabinets were all broken into while in storage. Unsurprisingly, this was followed by a sudden rash of identity theft.
THEN, after all that, they were awarded the contract to repair the roof.
Unmanned aircraft can only operate in controlled airspace with a Letter of Agreement from whoever in the FAA owns that airspace. And then, only one UAS can be operating in that airspace at one time.
That being said, the Falcon is just a big R/C plane. It's not the sort of UAS that would operate in controlled airspace anyway. It most likely flies well below what the FAA is in charge of.
As to FEMA's authority... Go read the executive orders that empower them sometime. They can do anything they want, including drafting civilian "consultants" and forcing them to perform services without compensation during an emergency. They are a very scary group of people who I wouldn't want to ever have anything to do with.
After just finishing up a little over five years working "with" (note I didn't say "for") the Federal Government, I can kinda understand. If there's no line item in the budget for a replacement fax machine, they are being honest that they can't do anything about it until October. Someone could, quite literally, make a federal case about it.
I remember throwing $600 graphics cards in the trash because we didn't have a budget for shipping them back for repair/replacement, but we DID have a budget for buying new ones.
Well, if our government actually worked like it was supposed to, Congress could hold that member of the Executive Branch in "Contempt of Congress" for lying to them... But Congress is totally cool with the NSA doing this, so that would be silly on their part.