RoseD1

share your files the best TOS Ive ever seen!

92-Year-Old Killed As Police Burst Into Her Home Niece Says Woman 'Gunned Down Like Dog' POSTED: 10:03 am EST November 22, 2006 UPDATED: 1:08 pm EST November 22, 2006 E-mail this story | Print this story ATLANTA -- A 92-year-old is dead in what her family called a case of mistaken identity. Was it the right address? Police said yes. But neighbors and relatives of the elderly woman shot to death by police said they believe there must have been a mistake. Police said the woman, identified by relatives as Kathryn Johnston, was shot to death after she wounded three plainclothes officers trying to serve a drug warrant at her house. The woman's niece, Sarah Dozier, said that she bought her elderly aunt a gun to protect herself and that her aunt had a permit for the gun. Relatives said they believe Johnston opened fire because she was frightened by the officers, who were not in uniform, barging into her home. Her relatives said Johnston had lived in the house for about 17 years. "They kicked her door down talking about drugs, there's no drugs in that house. And they realize now, they've got the wrong house," Dozier said. "I'm mad as hell." Officials said they had the correct house and that the warrant they had was legal. Dozier said there were never any drugs at the house. She said the woman probably "panicked" when police forced their way into the home. She accused police of shooting her aunt down "like a dog." Dozier said she bought the house for her aunt and installed bars on the window to protect the elderly woman. Atlanta Police Asst. Chief Alan Dreher said at a news conference Wednesday that an undercover officer made a drug purchase at Johnston's address late Tuesday afternoon from a male suspect. Officers were able to obtain a search warrant after that. Dreher said as the officers were executing the search warrant, the officers announced themselves and then forced open the door. Officials said the warrant was a "No Knock" warrant -- meaning that the officers did not knock before forcing open the door, but they did announce themselves. Dreher said the officers had a legal warrant before they forced open the door. He said they were justified in returning fire when they were fired upon. Dreher said as soon as the officers forced open the door, Johnston shot at the officers and the officers returned fire to protect themselves. One officer was shot 3 times -- once in the leg, on the side of the face and once in his bulletproof vest. One officer was hit in the leg and another hit in their arm. The plainclothes Atlanta Police officers were transported to Grady Memorial Hospital for treatment. All are expected to recover. All officers are on paid administrative leave pending an investigation -- as is common. Officials said they have not made any arrests in the case and they have not located the male suspect. Dreher said suspected narcotics were recovered from the home but police are awaiting lab results to confirm that. Dreher said a marked patrol vehicle was parked in front of the residence and the word "Police" was written across the front and back of the narcotics team's vests. He also said only a matter of minutes passed between when officers arrived at the scene and when they forced open the door. Dreher referred to the incident as a, "tragic and unfortunate incident."

Nikola Tesla revealed that an earthquake which drew police and ambulances to the region of his laboratory at 48 E. Houston St., New York, in 1898, was the result of a little machine he was experimenting with at the time which "you could put in your overcoat pocket." The bewildered newspapermen pounced upon this as at least one thing they could understand and Nikola Tesla, "the father of modern electricity" told what had happened as follows: Tesla stated, "I was experimenting with vibrations. I had one of my machines going and I wanted to see if I could get it in tune with the vibration of the building. I put it up notch after notch. There was a peculiar cracking sound. I asked my assistants where did the sound come from. They did not know. I put the machine up a few more notches. There was a louder cracking sound. I knew I was approaching the vibration of the steel building. I pushed the machine a little higher. "Suddenly all the heavy machinery in the place was flying around. I grabbed a hammer and broke the machine. The building would have been about our ears in another few minutes. Outside in the street there was pandemonium. The police and ambulances arrived. I told my assistants to say nothing. We told the police it must have been an earthquake. That's all they ever knew about it." Some shrewd reporter asked Dr. Tesla at this point what he would need to destroy the Empire State Building and the doctor replied: "Vibration will do anything. It would only be necessary to step up the vibrations of the machine to fit the natural vibration of the building and the building would come crashing down. That's why soldiers break step crossing a bridge." "On the occasion of his annual birthday celebration interview by the press on July 10, 1935 in his suite at the Hotel New Yorker, Tesla announced a method of transmitting mechanical energy accurately with minimal loss over any terrestrial distance, including a related new means of communication and a method, he claimed, which would facilitate the unerring location of underground mineral deposits. At that time he recalled the earth-trembling "quake" that brought police and ambulances rushing to the scene of his Houston Street laboratory while an experiment was in progress with one of his mechanical oscillators..."

How To Not Get Sued for File Sharing (And Other Ideas To Avoid Being Treated Like a Criminal) As of July 2006, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has sued over 20,000 music fans for file sharing in just under three years. In 2004, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) joined this misguided, anti-consumer crusade. Filing lawsuits against anonymous "Doe" defendants, the RIAA and MPAA seek to uncover the identities of P2P users and force them to pay thousands of dollars in settlements. Many innocent individuals are being caught in the crossfire. While there is no way to know exactly what the RIAA and MPAA are going to do or who they are going to sue, users of publicly-accessible P2P networks can take the following steps to reduce their chances of being sued: Either: * Make sure there are no potentially infringing files in your shared folder. This would ordinarily mean that your shared folder contains only files 1) that are in the public domain, 2) for which you have permission to share, or 3) that are made available under pro-sharing licenses, such as the Creative Commons license or other open media licenses, and * Remove all potentially misleading file names that might be confused with the name of an RIAA artist or song (e.g., "Usher" or "Madonna") from your shared folder Or: * Disable the "sharing" or "uploading" features on your P2P application, if your application allows it (see below). We hate this option -- it blocks your non-infringing sharing, and it doesn't get us any closer to a real solution that gets artists paid while making file sharing legal. But, at the moment, it does appear that turning off sharing will reduce your chances of becoming a lawsuit target. This can usually be accomplished in the "Options" or "Preferences" of your P2P application by removing all shared directories and sometimes setting an explicit option not to share files or to allow zero uploads. The specific method will vary depending on your P2P application, but looking at a few examples can give you the general idea. EFF suggests (but cannot guarantee) the following links for instructions (you can also try Google searches for ("turn off sharing" the software's name): o University of Chicago's resources: http://security.uchicago.edu/peer-to-peer/no_fileshare.shtml o Duke University resources: http://www.oit.duke.edu/helpdesk/filesharing/steps.html Note: Not all clients allow you to turn off "sharing." If you use software such as BitTorrent and eDonkey (as well as related clients like Azureus and eMule, respectively), you will automatically be uploading whatever you are currently downloading. In eDonkey, these files may appear in search results and thus become visible to the MPAA and RIAA. In BitTorrent, you must connect to a BitTorrent "tracker" to download a file, and your Internet address is visible to anyone else -- including the MPAA or RIAA -- connected to that tracker. In these instances, you may be at greater risk. Additional Considerations: Operating a public BitTorrent tracker that connects users to infringing material may put you at greater risk of being sued.The risk appears to increase with the number of connected users, the number of infringing files associated with the tracker, and the apparent availability to the general public. If you run a public tracker, being vigilant in removing potentially unauthorized files is advised. The RIAA has targeted subpoenas at users who allow their computers to be "Supernodes" on the FastTrack P2P System (used, for instance, by KaZaA or KaZaA Lite). In order to further reduce the risk of having your ISP subpoenaed or of being sued yourself, we recommend that you make sure your computer is not being used as a Supernode. To learn more about Supernodes and how to make sure your computer is not one, look here: Disabling the Supernode function with KaZaA (PDF 331k). The RIAA and MPAA have sued college students for using publicly-accessible file sharing networks, including systems like i2hub. However, with one particularly notable exception, the RIAA and MPAA have not targeted users downloading or uploading music over closed, college campus intranets -- in other words, students sharing with other students at the same school over the school's own network. Tracking intranet infringements is practically more difficult, though not necessarily impossible. Similarly, the RIAA and MPAA have not targeted file sharing through instant messaging systems, closed networks such as WASTE (http://waste.sourceforge.net/), and other sharing tools in which users can limit access by third-parties. What if I've Already Been Sued? If you receive notice that your ISP has been subpoenaed for your name and address or if you have already been sued, consider contacting EFF or www.subpoenadefense.org, where you can find information about how to defend your privacy and a list of attorneys willing to help. Contact your ISP and ask the people there to notify you immediately if they receive a subpoena seeking your identity. These links may provide helpful information: * How the RIAA Litigation Process Works [offsite] * Directory of Lawyers Defending RIAA Lawsuits [off-site] * RIAA v. The People: Two Years Later [PDF] * Parental Liability for Copyright Infringement by Minor Children [PDF 76k] November 1, 2005 * Typical Claims and Counterlcaims in Peer to Peer Litigation [PDF] * Bankruptcy Memo * A Motion to Ask the Court to Require the Record Companies to Sue You in Your Local Courts If you receive a cease and desist letter from the RIAA, consider contacting Chilling Effects, where EFF and several law school clinics are creating a gallery of cease and desist letters along with basic information about the claims being made and your rights online. Want a solution that gets artists paid while protecting P2P file sharing? We do too! Join or donate to EFF and: 1. Sign our petition to Congress and take a stand against the P2P lawsuit campaign. 2. Learn more about alternatives to the lawsuit. EFF's file sharing pages gather together some of the best ideas and describe how similar sorts of technology changes have been handled in the past. 3. Tell a friend, family member, colleague or even stranger on the street about the damage that the RIAA is doing to the Internet, innovation, and consumer choice. There are over 57 million Americans who use P2P file-sharing -- more than voted for President Bush -- and millions more worldwide -- so chances are good that the person sitting next to you on the bus, walking beside you on the sidewalk or driving in the car in front of you is using file-sharing, too. Start the conversation.

Microsoft is bad for business Silx (Admin) Posts: 17 I recently read an article regarding the copy protection methods of Microsoft's next Operating system, Vista. And my jaw literally dropped to the floor. Microsoft is, in essence, a control freak. They're all up in arms about software piracy, to the highest degree of detriment I think I've ever seen. Up until now, at least with Windows XP and some Office products, users had to submit their license key to Microsoft in order to activate their software. And even beyond that, if the user changed any kind of major piece of hardware in their system, they'd have to call up Microsoft and request re-activation because the key hash is based on your hardware. Microsoft is bad for business because they take this level of annoyance to the highest level in Windows Vista. In past versions of volume licensed Windows copies, a user could just input their key and be on their way. Volume licenses are very expensive and I suppose they figured whoever bought the license would safely keep it from the pirate's greedy little hands. Wrong. Of course, any kind of software you want can be found on the internet if you look hard enough. So what does Microsoft do with the volume licensing for Windows Vista? They require every machine in your for-example-business-of-6000-machines to be activated online, or over the phone. For me, as an administrator, that's the last nail in the coffin for reasons why I shouldn't upgrade my systems to Windows Vista. Microsoft, hear what your customers are saying. You're doing a lot of things wrong lately. You're making the wrong choices in your business decisions. Other available operating systems are staking a claim at your dominance of the market. What will you do next?

Judge orders RIAA to justify its piracy charges $750 for a 75 cent song is taking the Wii By Nick Farrell: Friday 10 November 2006, 15:31 A US COURT is forcing the Recording Industry of America to explain why it charges people it catches pirating $750 a single rather than the 70 cents they flog them to retailers for. In the case UMG v. Lindor, Judge Trager has allowed Ms Lindor, who the RIAA claim is a pirate, to challenge the $750 a track it wants in damages. The RIAA fought to prevent the amendment to Ms Lindor's case, claiming it was not up to her to decide damages. They said that her complaint about the level of damages was without merit and if the amendment went ahead it would prejudice them. Of course it would. If the RIAA was forced to claim back the real market value of the music that was nicked by pirates it probably would not be worth the effort. It also looks better on a press release if they can claim that a pirate stole $7,000 worth of music when they actually only stole $7. Judge Trager was not buying it either he said that the RIAA lawyers could not cite any case law to justify its position whereas Lindor could. Lindor could also prove that the RIAA was only out of pocket by 70 cents a single and not $750. Now it was up to the RIAA to show m'learned friend how it came up with its $750 figure. If it can't manage the task then it is pretty likely that the robed but not wigged one will rule that the amount of damages the RIAA is seeking is unconstitutional.

CBS) The recent security breach at Los Alamos National Laboratory was very serious, with sensitive materials being taken out of the facility — possibly including information on how to deactivate locks on nuclear weapons, officials tell CBS News. Officials say there is no evidence the information taken from Los Alamos was sold or transferred to anybody else, but there is no way to be sure right now.

FOX AND MYSPACE NOW AGGRESSIVELY ENGAGED IN CENSORSHIP AGAINST ENTIRE USER BASE

U.S. near the bottom in privacy study Posted: Wednesday, November 1 at 06:13 pm CT by Bob Sullivan U.S. privacy protections rank among the worst in the democratic world, a London-based privacy organization said Wednesday. Privacy International ranked 36 nations around the globe, including all European Union nations and other major democracies, and determined that in categories such as enforcement of privacy laws, the U.S. is on par with countries like China, Russia and Malaysia. Overall, the U.S. was determined to be an "extensive surveillance society,” the second-lowest rating in the study, which is available at Privacy International's Web site.

Recently I've been asked a lot of questions about 'shadow people'. Imagine yourself sitting quietly and comfortably in your home. Perhaps resting in your favorite chair, with only the light of the television shining into the room, and all of a sudden something catches your eye. In the dim light you see what appears to be a person moving quickly through the room and then disappears. You ask yourself, "What was that?" Many people seeing this image write to me and ask what is it they are seeing. I wish I could tell you what you were seeing! There has been much debate over what it is these people are seeing. Some are of the opinion that shadow people are dimensional travelers. While others say they are ghosts, or aliens, or just the imagination playing tricks on someone.

Have you ever noticed a shadow-like figure race across the room - seen only out of the corner of your eye, but gone when you turn your full vision in that direction?