News Stories

[killer3000ad]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

What's causing so much of this all of a sudden? Some kind of hacking renaissance?

Just my opinion but after the Sony PSN hack, the hackers realised how alot of game companies have poor security. Also with the growth of online networks to deliver DLC, the linking of game accounts to forum accounts, and of course as a form of DRM, there's alot of fat juicy targets out there.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Under the British Common Law, it is not considered a copyright infringement because the person is simply an illegitimate agent.

Under US law, he might be guilty of "contributory infringement." Here's a quick description from the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University:

Originally Posted by LII at Cornell

Copyright: The Copyright Act does not expressly impose liability for contributory infringement. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the "absence of such express language in the copyright statute does not preclude the imposition of liability for copyright infringements on certain parties who have not themselves engaged in the infringing activity.

One who knowingly induces, causes or materially contributes to copyright infringement, by another but who has not committed or participated in the infringing acts him or herself, may be held liable as a contributory infringer if he or she had knowledge, or reason to know, of the infringement. See, e.g., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005); Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).

Many of these sites do more than just provide a set of links. They often include a viewer that plays the infringing content located on other sites. They carry ads on these sites that put money directly into the pockets of the sites' owners. I share your worries about the extension of American law and jurisdiction into foreign countries, but I don't think the notion of "contributory infringement" is itself an unreasonable one.

Originally Posted by Sackett

No President has claimed this level of authority or power since Lyndon B. Johnson (and he was the first to claim it). Even Nixon assumed he needed Congress to explicitly fund the war.

Jefferson did send a fleet against the Barbary Pirates soon after taking office in 1801 without Congressional approval of any kind. I'd say that was a "level of authority or power" far greater than anything that happened in the twentieth century. By this action, Jefferson established a role for the commander-in-chief that didn't require a Congressional declaration of war. All unilateral actions by American presidents derive whatever authority they may have from Jefferson's decision to send the fleet.

[ganbaru]

Syrian forces prevent refugees fleeing to Turkey
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...73N02P20110619

Afghanistan says will deal with IMF crisis after summer holiday
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...75G1B020110619

- Afghanistan said on Sunday it won't be able to address a key International Monetary Fund concern over a looming cash crisis, sparked by a corruption scandal at a failed bank, for more than a month because lawmakers are on holidays.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Under US law, he might be guilty of "contributory infringement." Here's a quick description from the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University:

I don't know how the site is being laid out inside (beyond the login button), but even at the littlest indexing, stretching "contributory infringement" sounds like making a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to extradition.

The imposition of such egregious liability in this case would be like killing a tank with a bunker-buster bomb. The extradition should limit to a court case of not exceeding monetary compensation, but jail term is ridiculous because it is no criminal activity that results in the loss/injury of lives or threat to US's national security, unlike that of Gary McKinnon.

Many of these sites do more than just provide a set of links. They often include a viewer that plays the infringing content located on other sites. They carry ads on these sites that put money directly into the pockets of the sites' owners. I share your worries about the extension of American law and jurisdiction into foreign countries, but I don't think the notion of "contributory infringement" is itself an unreasonable one.

I don't think so too, but apparently after vising the site, he could actually face those charges. The subtitle above the search engine quoted "Search over 275,000 links.", and that is a basic proof of "intention" to provide copyrighted media.

However, if we bring it back to the very basic premise of consideration and intention in that to search for what the user wants, it is an invitation to treat, not an offer. Under the law the plaintiff could sue to have the downloader's names revealed because they are the real infringes of the copyright, not the link provider. The jurisdiction is overblown and should be settled in a UK court, not a US court unless the international copyright of the infringement is not recognised in UK.

The serious problem here is the abuse of the US-UK extradition treaty. Such an "infringement" should be counted as a commercial offence, not criminal.

OT : The example of Sony Corp v UCS Inc is pretty much the leftover after Big Corp gets full control of the media industry - they would start fighting each other.

[ganbaru]

Turn to kidnapping showed bin Laden's interest
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...06-19-19-41-51

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pressured by increased scrutiny of terrorist money sources and strikes aimed at its financiers, al-Qaida's core organization in Pakistan has turned to kidnapping for ransom to offset dwindling cash reserves, according to U.S. officials, some of whom cited information in files retrieved from Osama bin Laden's compound.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Sackett

1: If that is the argument, then Obama should just say that! Say: "The War Powers Act is unconstitutional and I won't obey it." Don't try and feed me some crap about how shooting missiles at people aren't "hostilities".

Thats a wide shot but maybe thats his startegy, being a bad example and showing how exploitable this act is and forcing legislation and jurisdiction to constrict that practice from future application (somehow).

Originally Posted by Sackett

2: I'm don't agree with that interpretation of the constitution. The American Constitution say that Congress has the power to declare war. It says nothing about the President being able to make war without Congressional authorization. How is it meaningful to say that only Congress can declare war if the President can just go make war regardless of whether Congress has declared war or not?

Now, this seems to be the problem everyone has with the powers of the president but nobody actually wants to really do something against it (the next president could be one of their own party).

Originally Posted by Sackett

If anything I tend to think that the War Powers act gives the President authority to act without Congressional approval- but only for a period of 60 days. After that he needs to get Congress to declare war. This is probably because Congress decided that modern warfare doesn't always allow congressional deliberation and sometimes needs immediate action.

In that case the act is stupid. Whats going to happen if congress says after 60 days: "Well, our president bombed the towns of country X but we will not declare war, we will extradite our president so he can be tried at the hague court for violation of human rights."
Defacto, this act gives the president the power to decide such things for the congress if the reason for war is not more damaging than the extradition of your own president as a war criminal.

Originally Posted by Sackett

And understand, I'm not a purist on this "declare war" stuff. If Congress authorizes the use of force but does actually call it a declaration of war- just semantics in my mind, Congress declared war. Or even if Congress doesn't formally authorize force but just votes to provide funds for the war. I can see that as Congressional approval.

But with Lybia, Congress has not voted to provide funds. Obama is just diverting money from a different fund authorized for other purposes.

And lets consider the practical implications. Do we really want the President of the United States to be able to attack other countries and make war on them without Congressional approval? Should one man really have that authority?

He doesn't even need to get Congressional approval for funds? Didn't we learn anything from the Iran-Contra affair? Didn't we learn from Vietnam?

No President has claimed this level of authority or power since Lyndon B. Johnson (and he was the first to claim it). Even Nixon assumed he needed Congress to explicitly fund the war.

The only thing that astonishes me, is that this wasn't debated before, this act exists for quite a while now.

I want to quote the first and third paragraph of this wikipedia article:

"A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many[who?] have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Others oppose that reasoning. In the courts, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe vs. Bush said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."[1] in effect saying a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution."

"The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times, each upon prior request by the President of the United States. Four of those five declarations came after hostilities had begun.[2] James Madison reported that in the Federal Convention of 1787, the phrase "make war" was changed to "declare war" in order to leave to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks but not to commence war without the explicit approval of Congress.[3] Debate continues as to the legal extent of the President's authority in this regard."

This debate is overdue imo. But I don't think it will be fruitful.

[SaintessHeart]

This guy is damn bloody smart :

Meet the credit-card king with $300,000 in credit

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) — Meet Pete D’Arruda: A man with 25 charge cards, more than a quarter of a million dollars in available credit — and a lot of financial self-control.

D’Arruda says he has more than $300,000 in available credit thanks to some 25 Visas, Mastercards, and individual store, airlines and gas cards – or about $12,000 per card. If he throws in his home-equity line of credit, it’s close to $400,000.

“It’s not taboo to have a bunch of credit cards,” said D’Arruda, a personal finance consultant who has been building his credit trove for about five years. “It’s about how you manage them.”

The founding principal of Capital Financial Advisory Group in Cary, N.C., and author of three personal-finance books is testing the more-is-better theory of credit cards: The more cards and available credit one has, the better the credit score — assuming, of course, the bills are paid promptly.

With a FICO credit score in the 810-815 range, it’s working for him. But credit-agency experts say it’s unnecessary and could create a financial maelstrom for those less diligent with their money.

“For many people they would end up with $350,000 in debt and that would not be a very good thing,” said Rod Griffin, director of public education for Experian.

D’Arruda charges everything from coffee to the rent for his office space on credit cards. He prides himself on his ability to manage them all and to pay them promptly, keeping himself from falling into a debt spiral.

“I like to pay my bills on time,” he said. “Even though I have all those outstanding potential balances, I don’t have many outstanding balances.”

What he does have, he boasts, is hundreds of thousands of miles and points, numerous discounts and even freebies from retail stores and vacation spots, waived annual fees on some credit cards and better interest rates on insurance and car and home loans. Typically, the higher the credit score, the lower the interest rate. What’s more, he’s got a running tally through credit-card statements on where he’s spent money both personally and for business.

“I’m getting paid to have a good credit score,” he said.

He’s got a Disney Visa card from Chase — with Buzz Lightyear on it that entertains his daughter Carrie — with which he’s accumulated enough points to pay for a Disney cruise this Thanksgiving. His platinum American Express card points will cover the airfare to Orlando, Fla.

Even cards with fees are a bonus for D’Arruda. He’s got a Visa Black Card, a new elite card with concierge service, access to airport lounges, cash-back rewards or airfare on any airline with no blackouts. He’s assessing it for a year to determine if he’ll use the rewards programs enough to cover the cost of the $495 annual fee, but he got the fee waived to do so.

“They pulled my credit score and saw that I was a good risk,” he said.

Credit scores are calculated through a complicated and proprietary algorithm of measures that differ among scoring agencies. However, there are three major pieces of your credit-score picture that all follow to closely

The most important: Your bill-paying history. It will account for as much as 35% of your total score. Pay all your bills on time. Even if it’s just the minimum payment, make sure that bill is marked paid on the designated date — or sooner. D’Arruda said he sometimes makes two payments a month to keep his balances in order.

Next up is what credit-ratings agencies call the “utilization rate,” or your debt-to-available-credit ratio. D’Arruda, who said his typically stands at about 10% to 15% and no more than 25%, began this credit-building experiment based on the simple notion that your credit score is mostly determined by the amount of available credit subtracted by the amount outstanding.

It’s a fussier method than that, but your utilization rate is worth some 30% of your score. Creditors don’t want to see the ratio over 30% and consider it an important link to your financial acumen and any lifestyle changes you may be facing.

“You don’t need a lot of credit cards to have a good utilization rate,” said Barry Paperno, consumer operations manager for myfico.com, the consumer arm of credit-scorer FICO. “And obtaining 25 credit cards for your score is overkill. Utilization looks at percentages more than dollars.”

Consider it this way: If you have $300,000 in available credit and carried a $30,000 balance, your utilization rate is 10%; if the available credit stands at $3,000 and you charged $300, your utilization rate is the same.

What you must have are credit limits that meet your charging needs, said Steven Katz, senior director of operations for TransUnion, the credit- and information-management company. “You may need a smaller number of cards with higher limits or more cards with smaller limits to stay under that 30% utilization rate.”

Don’t max out one card over another either in order to keep the utilization rates under 30%, he added. If you take out a store credit card with a $5,000 limit and you charge $4,750 for a home-theater system, your utilization rate on that card will set off alarms.

“It’s a good idea to try to keep the balance on each card under 30% of the limit,” Katz said. “It will help guide your efforts to keep your overall credit use low.”

A perfect score is near impossible to get and having credit but not using it won’t get you there. That’s doesn’t mean that you have to carry a balance that you must then pay interest fees on each month. You just need to use the card and pay it off to maximize your credit score.

“The ideal place to be is under a 10% utilization rate but over 0%,” FICO’s Paperno said. “There needs to be some kind of recent activity” to activate a score.

Your credit mix and history contribute about 15% to your score. Creditors like to see how you handle revolving credit, or credit cards, and installment loans, like mortgages and car and student loans. They average the age of the accounts divided by the number of accounts. Surprisingly, income doesn’t play a very significant part of the credit score.

D’Arruda had a long credit history before he started on this venture and said he was cautious about how much credit he applied for when. That’s because your score gets dinged each time it’s checked for new credit. Applying for too much credit at once has creditors worried that you’re in a financial bind and getting ready to rely on credit you might not pay back.

New accounts opened also impact your score by about 10% for much of the same reason. “Taking on new credit has shown to indicate a higher level of risk,” Paperno said. “People who go into default tend to have added new credit more recent than those who haven’t.”

D’Arruda admits he started collecting credit cards as a personal challenge to see how many he could get before he got cut off. The limits on each card vary, of course, and he’s even got an American Express that has no limit, though he’s not willing to test what that might mean.

“This is a lesson in discipline,” he said. “When you get the credit card, it’s like free money. You have to manage them well. It all comes down to not overspending because it’s not your money.”

And he said he only chooses cards that will help him with points, miles, cash back and other perks. He likes the 30% discounts he gets at Kohl’s, for example, and the special sales offered only to Home Depot and Best Buy cardholders. He’s a big fan of the Capital One card because it offers double miles.

His tool for limiting credit-card abuse? A metal money clip. It only holds five cards at a time, which helps him to monitor spending.

“You’ve got to treat it like cash,” he said. “You have to pay it back and if you do it wrong, you have to pay a whole bunch more back.”

He should have written a book on how to use credit cards. Most people just swipe and don't think about how they are going to pay it back.

BREAKING NEWS :

Euro to go up in smoke by 2015

The euro zone is on track to breakup within the next five years, according to new forecasts released today by Britain’s Centre for Economics and Business Research.

Without such a breakup, the economics consultancy has found, the nations of Southern Europe will see growth below 1.5% every year until 2015.

The forecasted average growth for Italy during this time is 1.2%; 1.0% for Spain; 0.6% for Portugal; and Greece will go backward at -0.5%.

Ireland is a standout. The nation’s weary economy is forecast to grow at an annual rate of 3.2% between now and 2015, although little of that growth will be passed on to the Irish consumer, Cebr said.

“Germany has no choice but to compromise in this round of bailout negotiations. The rewards of a stable euro outweigh the cost of further loans from Germany, even if these will not be repaid fully. So the currency is unlikely to collapse in the short term,” said Cebr economists.

But “sooner or later both the Greek population and international creditors will tire of fighting a losing battle, leading to a breakup of the currency union as Greece pulls out, probably followed by other countries.”

The Cebr economists said that the eventual breakup of the euro is likely to damage the solvency of various European banks, especially in France.

Late Sunday, the Eurogroup said that a new financing strategy for Greece would be unveiled by July.

[ganbaru]

Assad to address Syria as his troops block refugees
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...75J0AV20110620
What the f.ck could he have to say to his population, he is killing it.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Assad to address Syria as his troops block refugees
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...75J0AV20110620
What the f.ck could he have to say to his population, he is killing it.

"Kneel before Zod!"?

[Sackett]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Jefferson did send a fleet against the Barbary Pirates soon after taking office in 1801 without Congressional approval of any kind. I'd say that was a "level of authority or power" far greater than anything that happened in the twentieth century. By this action, Jefferson established a role for the commander-in-chief that didn't require a Congressional declaration of war. All unilateral actions by American presidents derive whatever authority they may have from Jefferson's decision to send the fleet.

But the Barbary pirates attacked American shipping and actually set a letter to the American Government demanding we pay tribute.

Isn't that a casus belli?

Now, if some one attacks American ships or something. Well duh the President doesn't need Congressional authorization to go kick their ass. (Although it'd still be the smart thing to do, as if Congress is going to tell the President to not defend Americans.)

But as far as I know Lybia wasn't attacking our shipping. Nor were they attacking anybody's shipping.

So where is the casus belli?

The President should not have the power to go off on his own and attack another country and start killing people just because he thinks the foreign government is run by a bad dictator who abuses his own people. (And I'm crying no tears for Gaddafi, he's just reaping what he sowed). For something like this he should have to get Congressional approval.

Do we really want the American President to have the authority to go around killing people when he couldn't get a majority in Congress to support him?

I mean, yeah, the Democrats in Congress turned on Bush at the end of the Iraq war- but when it comes down to it everyone should remember that most of those Democrats actually voted to authorize the war.

Now we're saying the President doesn't ever need to get approval?

[DonQuigleone]

I don't think the USA has formally declared war anyway since WW2, so the point is moot. The president does not necessarily need congressional approval to go to war (though he may need it to fund it)

[ganbaru]

Tunisia's Ben Ali says he was tricked into leaving
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...75J2A020110620

[Xellos-_^]

Skype Technologies SA, the Internet- calling service being bought by Microsoft Corp., is firing senior executives before the deal closes, a move that reduces the value of their payout, according to three people familiar with the matter. Vice Presidents David Gurle, Christopher Dean, Russ Shaw and Don Albert were dismissed from the Luxembourg-based company, said the people, who requested anonymity because the departures aren't public. Chief Marketing Officer Doug Bewsher and Anne Gillespie, head of human resources, were also fired. Executives Ramu Sunkara and Allyson Campa, from the 2011 Qik purchase, were also let go.
The timing of the dismissals means stock options will be worth less than if the executives stayed until the closing of the $8.5 billion deal, the people said. When a company gets bought, compensation is often tied to the purchase price, said Neil Sims, a managing director at Boyden, a search firm.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...4JVP.DTL&tsp=1

this is what happen when sharks go on a feeding frenzy. They start eating their own.

[Urzu 7]

33 Year old woman taunts and mocks 7 year old girl who is terminally ill.

http://trenton.patch.com/articles/pe...ec1_lnk3|71826

Facebook documents Rose gave to Trenton police showed comments allegedly attributed to the neighbors stating:

“Detroit St. Party, When that kid dies, cause boys and girls it’s to happen.”

“Dead and gone, only a few more hours till party time, I’m going to visit a grave and take a piss.”

Rose told Patch she believes Jennifer Petkov started her negative behavior over an unanswered text invitation to a birthday party.

It goes without saying this is awful, but I also want to say that I really don't understand some people; those that are very bad or awful. It is unbelievable how some people can be.

[Hooves]

Such a cruel thing to make fun of a person who is terminally ill. But to make such pictures like that, and even throw a party for her death is going beyond sanity. Regardless of Jennifer Petkov's reasoning for being so angry at them, there is nothing to match the scale such as this.

[AnimeFan188]

Bad news for Bitcoin:

"The Bitcoin community faced another crisis on Sunday afternoon as the price of
the currency on the most popular exchange, Mt.Gox, fell from $17 to pennies in a
matter of minutes. Trading was quickly suspended and visitors to the home page
were redirected to a statement blaming the crash on a compromised user
account. Mt.Gox’s Mark Karpeles said that the exchange would be taken offline to
give administrators time to roll back the suspect transactions."

See:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/gox/

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by AnimeFan188

Bad news for Bitcoin:

"The Bitcoin community faced another crisis on Sunday afternoon as the price of
the currency on the most popular exchange, Mt.Gox, fell from $17 to pennies in a
matter of minutes. Trading was quickly suspended and visitors to the home page
were redirected to a statement blaming the crash on a compromised user
account. Mt.Gox’s Mark Karpeles said that the exchange would be taken offline to
give administrators time to roll back the suspect transactions."

See:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/gox/

Interesting. Anyone know how Bitcoins works exactly?

[ganbaru]

Wal-Mart needs to press harder on advancing women
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...06-20-20-57-45

US troops coming home? Obama to say on Wednesday
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...06-20-22-53-45

[Decagon]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Interesting. Anyone know how Bitcoins works exactly?

It's a virtual currency whose recent value has largely been determined by speculation and gambling. On the one hand, it's a currency that can be traded between two parties in an encrypted transaction for some goods and services (or just cash), on the other it relies on end users honoring agreements and third party institutions to be traded, both of which can be susceptible to hackers or scams. I could get more into the specifics, but you can find info about the process of generating the currency and some of the ideas behind its inception on bitcoin.org.

It's only worth as much as people are willing to buy it for, so in a case where a large amount of coins are dropped at 1 cent each as happened when apparently some large account was compromised, one person can make the market crash.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Interesting. Anyone know how Bitcoins works exactly?

Well, how detailed do you need the information? The article says it is an intermediate (virtual) currency used to exchange into other (hard) currencies. At the same time it works like a share at the stock exchange, because when many users hold bitcoins instead of hard currencies (over a longer period of time), the bitcoins will gain in value with each new user converting hard currency into bitcoins (and holding it). This scheme assumes a rather fixed amount of bitcoins.
In that regard it is very prone to an investment bubble however, because it can be tweaked by powerful users (those with a lot of money) to work like a pyramid scheme. If the power user retreats, the whole bubble will burst.