No, not true. The strength of electromagnetic fields is governed by an inverse-square law. The reason the town bans WiFi is that even a low-power router can overpower the signals from space, even though a 100 meter diameter dish is focused on the space signals.
The same phenomena means that people who complain about radiation from cell towers while not avoiding cell phones are being irrational--the signal from a phone in the same room (or in your pocket) is far stronger that from a tower hundreds or thousands of meters away.
One possibility is that the genetic component to homosexuality is like that for sickle cell trait, fitness-enhancing in the heterozygous case but detrimental in the homozygous.
My reading of the Treasury release is that this all has to do with"baselines". Compared to current spending the deal didn't make cuts at all--spending will continue to increase over the next 10 years. The "cuts" are compared to a projection of what would have been spent without the deal, called a baseline. There are various ways of calculating baseline, i.e. how you account for inflation.It seems that S&P's error was related to misunderstanding which baseline the 2.1T applied to.
The US did not come within one day of defaulting. It came within a day of hitting the debt ceiling, which is a very different thing. Despite the way it was portrayed, the government could have limped along for days our weeks without defaulting.
(I'm not saying that would have been a good thing--just that the idea of August 2nd as the day default would have occurred is incorrect.)
How is this not "unauthorized access" "in any meaningful sense"?
They blocked his IP, they blocked his MAC, and he hid a machine in a wiring closet to get on MIT's network. What would he have to do to make it "meaningful"?
Why do you think a "properly implemented" OpenID site should allow the user to use any authentication provider? The relying party site is trusting the OpenID provider to authenticate its users. Wouldn't sites with real security requirements want to vet providers before trusting them?
And you are failing to understand the legal questions at issue...
The Fifth Amendment, as currently interpreted, doesn't provide the protection you describe. It protects against giving self-incriminating testimony and essentially the question is whether the password is "testimony." Keep in mind that the government is not asking him to disclose it, just to type it into the computer. Here's a good discussion: http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1197670606.shtml (There seems to be a CSS problem with that page, but the text is fine.)
It's not true that "you may not own the copyright to changes you make ... because the court may rule it a derivative work." You may not be able to distribute those changes without violating someone else's copyright, but that doesn't affect the fact that you own the copyright to your own work.
Consider what would happen in your FanFic case if Sony tried to incorporate the kid's changes into EverQuest. The kid could sue them for infringement.
So you're arguing that obesity, neck pain, loneliness, divorce, stress, and insomnia cause long commutes? Or that some factor causes both? What might that be?
I'm suspicious of this sort of research for lots of reasons, but concerns about the direction of causality is pretty low on my list in this case.
Copyright law prohibits distribution of derived works. The LGPL is a license which gives permission to distribute software if certain conditions are met. In this case the license is from the many authors of Webkit and it permits Apple to distribute a derivative work (the iOS browser). If you think about it that way then "immediately" doesn't really come into play. If Apple provides a copy of the source when asked, they're complying with the license. If they don't they have no license. Technically, they are infringing copyright every time they distribute a copy of iOS.
If someone sues, would a court award damages for the copies distributed or enjoin distribution of iOS until they comply? I doubt anyone knows because AFAIK no case has ever made it that far. Typically (L)GPL disputes are settled long before they make it to court, because the cost of litigation for both sides is high compared to the remedy desired (release of modified source).
I wonder if there's a role for "Copyleft Trolls", i.e. litigators who acquire copyrights to GPL or LGPL source, then sue license violators with the intention of collecting damages rather than just compelling release? US copyright law allows statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work infringed.[1] If each source file is a separate work, there could be a lot of money at stake. In other words, the Righthaven strategy[2] applied to source code instead of newspaper pictures. Perhaps I should apply for a business method patent on that idea.[3]