Slashdot Mirror

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECLARED, that Microsoft has violated 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, as well as the following state law provisions: Cal Bus. & Prof. Code 16720, 16726, 17200; Conn. Gen. Stat. 35-26, 35-27, 35-29; D.C. Code 28-4502, 28-4503; Fla. Stat. chs. 501.204(1), 542.18, 542.19; 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. ch. 10/3; Iowa Code 553.4, 553.5; Kan. Stat. 50-101 et seq.; Ky. Rev. Stat. 367.170, 367.175; La. Rev. Stat. 51:122, 51:123, 51:1405; Md. Com. Law II Code Ann. 11-204; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, 2; Mich. Comp. Laws 445.772, 445.773; Minn. Stat. 325D.52; N.M. Stat. 57-1-1, 57-1-2; N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 340; N.C. Gen. Stat. 75-1.1, 75-2.1; Ohio Rev. Code 1331.01, 1331.02; Utah Code 76-10-914; W.Va. Code 47-18-3, 47-18-4; Wis. Stat. 133.03(1)-(2);

No,

It isn't a common practice. If anything it is an exception to the rule. Just because you linked to some detention center site doesn't prove anything along these lines. How many people are in club gitmo in a years time? Lets take a liberal number of 3000. And yes that is a liberal number, the numbers in 2004 were 500 hundred at club gitmo and roughly 100 on other countries.

In the state of 2005 alone some 14,000,000 (14 million) arrests were made for non traffic related criminal infractions. Thats roughly .02 Or 2% of all arrests. And the number gets even lower if you consider that the number of detainees (unlawful enemy combatants) are lower then 3000 in actuality and considering their arrest and detention was spread out over several years.

So if we divide the 3000 into three years (even though we have been adding and removing detainees for longer then that, it comes out to .007 Or .7% (less then one percent). This is hardly common in any sense. If anything it it shows directly how uncommon it is yet still possible if you are suspected of a certain type of crime. And lets not get into the averages on being suspected of that type of crime. It makes the argument of it being common in the US even less attractive.

I know you think it is a travesty that people are being held without habeas corpus rights. And in some cases it could be. I'm not sure I disagree with that sentiment. But I do strongly disagree with the blatant lying about it to shed something in an unfavorable light. You are unlikely to be held without being innocent until proven guilty for any arrest you might face. You could be arrested more then 1000 times in a year without the chances of being held without the presumption of innocent until proven guilty comes close to effecting you. That is a lot of chances. Even the guy recently arrested in Ohio for aiding terrorist and conspiracy to blow up US buildings is getting proper due process and a trial.

Not to quip too much, but...

"Another thing to remember is that guns have a great equalizing effect."

54% of children aged 12 years who were victims of homicide were killed by guns, between 1976 and 2004. Unless you want 12-year-olds to start carrying guns, there's no way to equalize that effect.

77.1% of 17-year-olds who were victims of homicide were killed by guns. Should most 17-year-olds be walking around with guns to defend themselves? How else can you equalize that number?

By... trying... to reduce the number of guns?

Now-in England last year, they had fourteen deaths from handguns.

To be fair, there were 22 homicides involving handguns in England and Wales in 2005/06 (see http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.p df page 44). Based on a mid-2005 population of 50,431,700 for England and 2,958,600 for Wales (see http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=6), that's 0.41 hangun homicides per million people.

In the United States, there were 8,299 handgun homicides in 2004 (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weapo nstab.htm). Based on a mid-2004 population of 293,638,158 (see http://www.census.gov/popest/national/files/NST_ES T2006_ALLDATA.csv), that's 28.26 handgun homicides per million people.

Therefore, the per capita handgun homicide rate is about 69 times higher in the US compared to England and Wales.

Short on time, so short comment:

Michael Moore goes wrong in a number of areas with his "culture of fear" model of US gun crime. Highlights follow:

- First, while many nations (including my own, i.e. Sweden) have plenty of legal guns (hunting is a huge movement here and tens of thousands of reservists have FN-FAL assault rifles at home), those are usually of models not well suited to crime, are registered, and required to be stored in a safe fashion. The same goes for, say, Canada (his chosen comparison).

- General US gun deaths are extremely concentrated to certain demographic groups (Read: black & latino bangers in inner-cities.). For instance, a little more than half of all US killers are black, despite making up a bit more than a tenth of the population. (I.e see the bureau of justice statistics: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm) The gross murder rate for US lily-white suburbia is much closer to Europe than stats would let on, despite spillover from the inner city wars.

- In short, the main general problem with regards to guns in the US are not trigger happy rednecks in Arkansas or scared soccer moms killing people by mistake. The "culture of fear" theory just comes up short when confronted by reality.

- Gun accessibility, however, is probably important. The banger wars are hardly helped by the plentiful and easy access to guns. It is unrealistic at this point, however, to see how even a total gun ban could yield short-term results in this department. Bangers would hang on to their illegal guns no matter what laws are passed, and only a long battle of attrition could bring major crime-drop windfalls. In the meantime, the law-abiding population would be stripped of percieved and real protection, and political pressures to ease gun access would mount.

- Making things even more complicated, the main benificiaries of a gun ban would in the end be white city liberals, while the hunting 'n guns culture of the rednecks would pay a big chunk of the price. The political problems are obvious.

- Finally (lots more to be said, but I have to go to bed... ;) ) - while gun control can probably not help US gun crime stats in a major way in anything approaching the short-ish run, gun access is incredibly important to events such as the Virginia Tech massacre. Kids snap all over the world over lots of silly (and not-so-silly) things - but those that have access to semi-automatic weapons when they snap are many, many times more dangerous. In the larger scheme of things, however, massacres make up a tiny proportion of murders, although they are much more spectacular (and hence garner more media attention, feeding future massacres, etc.) than the average drug hit.

That it for today. Goodnight!

I see you're from the UK or somewhere where this is true. However, in the US, downloading is legal; Congress explicitly legalized downloading less than $2k worth of copyrighted material per year with the No Electronic Theift Act which says that it's illegal to download more than that set amount a year. Less than that limit and you're legal. Downloading more than that and you're not breaking copyright law, you're breaking the NET act.

506. Criminal offenses

        (a) Criminal Infringement.--Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either--

              1. for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or

              2. by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.

thank good you are just the president of beef and not a lawyer that must defend clients that download and learn about the United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act

and legalese
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red. htm

educate thyself

From: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc -00029523.htm

For example, Kerberos is an industry standard for encryption, in which certain
fields are reserved for optional use. Microsoft, however, has used one of those
fields to produce its own proprietary version of the standard. In itself, this
is unobjectionable.

Microsoft, however, has gone one step further: it has manipulated its operating
systems and middleware so that they will use and accept only the Microsoft
version of the Kerberos standard.(16) This is diametrically contrary to the
purpose for which standards, even with optional fields, are developed. Optional
fields are included in standards to enable firms to add information to a
message. Ordinarily, if an optional field is used in creating standard messages,
those messages can still be sent and received among all products that comply
with the standard. In such cases, the information included in the optional field
may simply be ignored. Optional fields are never, however, intended to enable a
firm -- i.e., Microsoft -- to subvert the standard and preclude its widespread
usage.(17)

Thus, by polluting industry standards, such as Java and Kerberos (among others),
Microsoft can further impede the use and development of competing middleware.
Any calls encrypted with Kerberos sent by Microsoft Windows can be read only by
other Microsoft Middleware and not by Novell's middleware. Similarly, Novell's
middleware cannot send calls encrypted with Kerberos (the industry standard),
because Windows will reject them. ...

16. The CCIA explains that "[w]hile the Kerberos Version 5 Microsoft uses
for their security services is a standard, the way they have implemented
Kerberos is not a standard and renders it nearly inoperable with any other
implementation." CCIA White Paper, supra, at 24.

17. Not content with Microsoft's corruption of the Kerberos standard, Microsoft
has filed for a patent on its proprietary version. Consequently, not only will
Microsoft products fail to interoperate with non-Microsoft products (because of
the modification), but Microsoft will not allow anyone else to use its version
unless they purchase a license from Microsoft.

I was curious about the murder rates, so I looked it up with google.

First, are you in one of those countries that has a major political party with the word "Christian" in the name?

Yes, but they didn't make the low limit (4%) last election, for the 2nd time in a row, I think. (Sorry couldn't resist)

Highest murder rates: Has such a study been done on the aggregate of the EU?

From around 2000, US seems to be about 6 per 100000, EU about 1.6 per 100000.

Srebrenica is in Bosnia, which has not been and is not a member of EU.

I'm a paranoid bastard. I got there the hard way, and its served me well a time or two. I can walk down a street, and spend the whole time thinking about bad things that can happen, and I'm inventive. I hunch involuntarily when I hear target shooting in the distance, even though I know I can't possibly be hit if I hear the shot.

I am a worst case scenario kinda guy, and I tend to avoid a lot of crap that comes down the pipe because of it, though admittedly it's not a fun way to live. I also tend to take a lot of crap about it, from men, women, coworkers, friends.

For every person who is rightly cautious, there are a dozen who never consider danger for a second...This is personal experience with people looking at me like I'm a lunatic for ever imagining a bad thing might happen in X situation.

Sure, a lot of females get sexually assaulted, but you should look up the actual crime statistics...The vast majority (70%) of sexual assaults come from family members, and acquaintances, not from random strangers. In the case of murder, only 14% of murders came from strangers who had no relation to the victim (as far as is known) (BJS).

Fearmongering about random strangers is a fricking joke. The calls are coming from inside the building, and the person on the other end of the line has a key. Rolling up your window ain't gonna help, because the trouble is probably in the car with you.

You know what you can do about it? Nothing. You can live your life like me, a fricking paranoiac who's creeped out to eat food prepared by other people, and is probably still gonna die in some stupid violent way...Or you can realize that that odds of anything bad happening are pretty damn low...50 to 1 against per year for all violent crime (BJS again), and while that doesn't mean never, not even close, it's pretty fricking slim to let it run your whole life.

I'm a paranoid bastard. I got there the hard way, and its served me well a time or two. I can walk down a street, and spend the whole time thinking about bad things that can happen, and I'm inventive. I hunch involuntarily when I hear target shooting in the distance, even though I know I can't possibly be hit if I hear the shot.

I am a worst case scenario kinda guy, and I tend to avoid a lot of crap that comes down the pipe because of it, though admittedly it's not a fun way to live. I also tend to take a lot of crap about it, from men, women, coworkers, friends.

For every person who is rightly cautious, there are a dozen who never consider danger for a second...This is personal experience with people looking at me like I'm a lunatic for ever imagining a bad thing might happen in X situation.

Sure, a lot of females get sexually assaulted, but you should look up the actual crime statistics...The vast majority (70%) of sexual assaults come from family members, and acquaintances, not from random strangers. In the case of murder, only 14% of murders came from strangers who had no relation to the victim (as far as is known) (BJS).

Fearmongering about random strangers is a fricking joke. The calls are coming from inside the building, and the person on the other end of the line has a key. Rolling up your window ain't gonna help, because the trouble is probably in the car with you.

You know what you can do about it? Nothing. You can live your life like me, a fricking paranoiac who's creeped out to eat food prepared by other people, and is probably still gonna die in some stupid violent way...Or you can realize that that odds of anything bad happening are pretty damn low...50 to 1 against per year for all violent crime (BJS again), and while that doesn't mean never, not even close, it's pretty fricking slim to let it run your whole life.

Ever walk to your car in a dark parking lot? When you do, do you give thought to being attacked? I don't

Well you should. Rates of male victimization for all crimes other than rape are considerably higher than female victimization. The rate of rape in males is very hard to estimate, but is reported at about 1/4 of the rate in females. Given that males are much less likely than females to report themselves as victims of rape, it is quite possible that the rate of rape in males is comparable to that in females. It is certainly the case that rates of violent assault and murder are about four times higher in males than females.

This is because we as a society do not care two figs about violence against males. We do not value our young males, and we do not teach them to take care of themselves. Quite the opposite: we teach them to be careless of their own safety, and we teach them they are cowards or worse if they take reasonable precautions like giving a thought to being attacked when walking to their car in a dark parking lot.

This is not to say that violence against females is acceptable. It is obviously not. But any time I hear anyone decrying "violence against women" as being particularly bad I have to wonder if they think violence against men is OK? Or at least not so particularly bad? And if they do think that, I really have to wonder why. If they are even remotely decent and humane it certainly cannot be the fact that most violence is committed by men, because it is also the case that, for example, in the United States most violence is committed by black people, and there is a word for people who think that that fact makes violence against black people OK.

<sigh> Somehow, I'm not surprised. The Bush administration always seems to come down on the side of large corporations vs. the little guy.

FWIW, I found TFA just as biased as my preceding remark. Most cases that reach the the Supreme Court are a lot more complicated than they seem at first blush. Skimming FTC's brief, I found some good points being offered. On the whole, though, I think "vertical minimum resale price maintenance (RPM)" is not a good thing.

Colored diamonds, probably from the factory in Sarasota, Florida.

The diamond industry is coming unglued. They're not that rare, they're not that hard to make, multiple companies are cranking out diamonds, and de Beers lost an antitrust suit, so the monopoly is coming apart.

The resale value of diamonds is about 40% of list price. If that. (The phrase "dump value" is used in the industry.) Look on eBay for even cheaper ones. If you want real diamonds on your computer's LEDs, it won't cost you much.

This is just another case mod project, one with delusions of grandeur.

I won't be surprised if 14 is the minimal legal age to be sent to the electric chair.

Actually, so far the youngest person on death row in America was sixteen (Shareef Cousin). Cousin would have been executed by the Great State of Louisiana by now, except for the small problem that he's innocent. After spending four years on death row, the conviction was finally overturned. Yay, justice.

Here's the last words of seventeen year-old Joseph John Cannon (executed by the State of Texas). Another interesting fact: 1 in 9 people on death row were under the age of 19 at the time of arrest (source: Bureau of Justice).

Here's a Time Magazine article on the Kids of Death Row. According to the article, previous Republican Governor of California Pete Wilson suggested that 14-year-olds should be eligible for the death penalty. So your initial statement isn't too far off the charts.

can be found under http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2000/2pet/7pet/200 0-1293.pet.aa.html
"VII. Conclusion" is the paragraph with what the judge said in his decision.

Let the marketplace decide... MS gets lazy with IE, and the next thing you know the hottest browser on the market is Firefox. Why can't Sun do the same thing with servers on its own without government interference???

Doesn't this violate the Sherman Antitrust Act: where a monopoly cannot use their market power (IE: existing customer base) to extend into other fields / markets.

If cross-subsidies from monopoly to competitive markets are considered potentially anticompetitive, a rule against mixed bundling should be based not on a comparison of price and cost, but on the market power in the bundled-product markets. The less likely it is that A is earning monopoly profits in the market for one bundled product, the less concern there is that a mixed bundle could have anticompetitive effects.

Doesn't this violate the Sherman Antitrust Act: where a monopoly cannot use their market power (IE: existing customer base) to extend into other fields / markets.

If cross-subsidies from monopoly to competitive markets are considered potentially anticompetitive, a rule against mixed bundling should be based not on a comparison of price and cost, but on the market power in the bundled-product markets. The less likely it is that A is earning monopoly profits in the market for one bundled product, the less concern there is that a mixed bundle could have anticompetitive effects.

almost all civil cases are settled out-of-court:

Tort trial cases terminated in U.S. district courts, 2002 - 2003

Total number tort cases concluded: 98,786
Jury and bench tort trials 1,647
Tort trials with plaintiff winners 704
Tort trials with monetary awards 590
Median damage awards $201,000

Civil Justice Statistics

remember that these are the cases that entered the system - not those settled before any papers were filed

http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ga_handguns/keltec_0 92304/

http://www.gunblast.com/KelTec_P3AT.htm

http://thearmedcitizen.com/gunpages/slipper.htm

The ethics of owning guns http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html

The 2nd Amendment http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

If you know anyone with young children who need gun safety training http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/materials.asp

I'm an accountant. You don't understand deferred compensation.

I'm a forensic accountant, one step away from my CFE. You don't understand how people do a lot of shady stuff to make a lot of money.

When you have someone who is going to be paid with, and have a significant role in spending, tax money, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for him (from a moral standpoint) to use tricks and loopholes to avoid paying taxes.

I've also done a good bit of FCPA work and my main function is bankruptcy. That's all I'll say about that, other than my original post was completely accurate. Cheney was paid both by the U.S. gov't and Halliburton concurrently through FY2005.

The fact that his deferred payment was set up to avoid paying taxes and he funneled a tremendous amount of tax money back to the company that was still paying him speaks volumes about the man. It would be enough to set off alarm bells on darn near all our analysis software.

In the United States, it's not illegal to be a monopoly. But, once a monopoly, what was once a competitive advantage becomes criminal conduct.

I thought being a monopoly in the US was illegal under the Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts.

Microsoft was found guilty of acting as a monopoly in 2002 after being sued by 20 US State Attorneys General. You might think the punishment didn't go far enough, but that's different from a monopoly not being illegal.

The report...
A Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Use of National Security Letters

Every time I hear an argument like this I get frustrated. People always say things based on dubious math calculated by fear-mongering conservatives like "immigrants cost $10k/per year". However, they never stop to consider that migrant workers might actually ADD VALUE to the economic system. How much money to Americans save every year on food because of low-cost migrant labor? How about other services? I imagine that it more than offsets the dubious number of $10k/year in government services (if that's even correct).

There are few *tiny* flaws in your thinking.

One, "fear-mongering conservatives [sic]" rarely talk about the cost of "immigrants". The talk about the cost of illegal aliens. There is the economic cost, which can be quantified, and the social cost and is hard to define, but like porn, a lot of people know it when they see it.

So where does the economic cost of illegal aliens come from? Well, the obvious costs are incarceration costs. The US has approximately 2,000,000 people behind bars, and 1/3rd of them are illegal aliens. The average annual cost is $22650 per prisoner, which means we are spending over $1.5 billion per year on simply locking up illegal aliens for committing a pretty diverse set of crimes. Approximately 30-40% of illegal aliens are on some form of public assistance. Tack in the anchor babies that are considered citizens, but are otherwise economic drains (medical, social, and education expense), and it's clear our little experimentation with an illegal alien invasion (an estimated 4 to 10 million cross the border every year according to the Border Patrol, as referenced in House.gov document) is a net economic drain under the most optimistic models.

So how about the social cost? How many people are murdered by illegal aliens every year? DOJ doesn't really track it, but estimates are around 4,000 people. That's 4,000 people that, almost certainly, would be alive if not for those "undocumented immigrants" that you "liberals" love so much. And those murders are in addition to the rapes, assaults, DWIs (with injuries and fatalities), and property crime that, as a population group, illegal aliens are much more likely to commit than native Americans or legal immigrants. Oh, another social cost never remarked is the wage depression effect of illegal immigration, especially for blue collar jobs, and PARTICULARLY, this impact on other minority communities like African-Americans. But it's not limited to just them, either. Blue collar Americans of every stripe have seen their wages decline across the board, pretty much in-line with the massive increase in illegal immigration. Fast food used to the an entry level job for high school kids. It's now a bastion for illegal aliens. Same thing with lawn care, construction, handy-man work, road-work, meat-packing, brick-laying, etc. Guess what, not everyone gets to be a software engineer or doctor, and a just society would make pains to give it's citizens and legal immigrants the first shot at the jobs that are left, rather than locking them out and giving them instead to illegal aliens. Then there is the whole undermining the country thing. Think those illegal immigrants really care about ideas like constitutional government and the rule of law? Think they have the background and the education? No way Jose, we're busy importing a new, permanent underclass while simultaneously pulling the support out from under our own poor working class.

So who benefits from illegal immigration? Corporations like Walmart, Tyson, Pilgrim's Pride and their stockholders., general contractors who slake off $100,000 profit on a $200,000 home because they hired sub-standard illegal labor. It isn't the average consumer. It isn't the average American. The argument that we get lower priced oranges or chicken is a dubious one at best, and I've never seen anyone crunc

With our system in the USA, if you have someone's account number, basically all the information on the paper check, you then have ALL the information you need to take money from anyone's account.

Right now, check fraud is more rampant than credit card fraud in the USA, at least among serious ID theft rings:
Example: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls/PressReleases/051006 -01.html

These folks cleared out over $4,000,000 before they were caught, using stolen checking account information. It wasn't until the reached the million-dollar mark did they get multi-agency multi-jurisdiction law enforcement cooperation to bring them in. The thieves have now learned to keep the dollar amounts smaller now.

When you use a paper check at most stores now, they take the check, scan it at the cash register, void it and hand it back to you. They simply run the "item" through as an electronic draft.

Make no mistake, for the criminal in the USA, having checking account information is MUCH MORE valuable than having a credit card if the desire is to obtain cash. Credit cards can be canceled. Checking accounts can be closed, but that doesn't stop criminals trying to pass the bad checks...

They print up fake checks, and get this... They go to the post office and buy stamps. Hundreds and often thousands of dollars in stamps... because stamps have a declared face value that can be sold for face value or at most a 5% loss...

I have a presentation and training class that I deliver on ID theft, one I developed to teach Law Enforcement and Magistrates, some info I came across i've written about on http://www.appiant.com/ I think its under the EV SSL subject.

link: http://www.appiant.com/security_today/2007/01/ev_s sl_certific.html

-joel

these are the documents i immediately thought about:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
see items 345 to 350

Microsoft was not convicted of crimes. The final judgment in the case is a settlement where Microsoft does not admit guilt.

The case was a civil action case anyway, so it was impossible for them to be "convicted of a crime". They could have been "found liable".

The full text is here. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f200400/200457.htm

I originally posted that article, and I will NEVER buy from Dell again. I also own a small corporation. It is so clear that Dell is violating the antitrust settlement with Microsoft here, it's not even funny. I buy all my gear from TigerDirect.ca now, and NONE of it is Dell. I just loved the Indian call center by the way, nice touch not being able to understand a god darned word of what the people supporting you are saying.

Three links for you Dell, consider these the 3 ghosts of Christmas from a Christmas Carol

1.
https://membership2.dell.com/macanada/signin.aspx? s=gen&l=en&c=ca&cs=cadhs1

Server Error in '/' Application.
The resource cannot be found.

I can't even log into my dell account because of Windows.

2.
http://www.linuxworldcanada.com/
I asked Dell on camera at Linux world in Toronto 3 years ago why they wouldn't preload linux on inspirons, and off camera they told me about the deal with Microsoft. LITERALLY. I turned the dv cam back on shortly after and chronicled it. I will publicly republish this film in a short time.

3.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/26/185522 5&tid=109

Offering rebates to AMERICAN companies to keep competitors off of affordable retail hardware is not within the bounds of the DOJ settlement, and Dell KNOWS it.

This is in clear violation of a settlement your partners took with the US DOJ.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm

Dell can pound dirt and cry for all I care. They deserve it for helping Microsoft to destroy our freedom of choice and diverse American tech.

The Ghost of Xmas future is here Dell, do you want to right some wrongs, or do you want to make love to Steve Ballmer? You decide.

More importantly, is he being charged under Title 17 or Title 18? The former has a statute of limitations of 3 years, while the latter is 5 years. If he's being charged under Title 17 his lawyer might have a quick case to look forward to. Even if it's Title 18, the government will have to show that he committed the crimes he's being indicted for subsequent to 1999-2000 or so.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/ usam/title9/crm01860.htm

Actually, DoJ reports state that most child sexual abuse is the non-violent "fondling" sort. The second most common is the non-violent "seducing/coercing" sort (aka "I slept with my teacher isn't that cool?"). The third most common is exhibitionism... where a guy exposes himself to a kid or a bunch of kids (and yes, that is recorded as "Child Sexual Assault" in most US jurisdictions).

Less than 5% of child sexual assault is the result of violence. Less than 15% result from the threat of violence.

An interesting aside that some researchers pointed out recently in a journal article is that studies show that kids who come from "bad homes" where they are subject to physical or emotional abuse, or simply left with fewer life ambitions and choices (hence, poverty generally) are TWICE as likely to experience sexual abuse. Interestingly enough, people who fall into this "bad homes" category have 20% higher rates of substantial sexual and psychological dysfunction and average 3-4 more sexual partners over a lifetime. Interestingly enough, if you isolate this variable ("bad homes" vs "good homes") in studies of sexual abuse victims, you find that there is a far stronger coorilation between psychological problems as an adult to "coming from a bad home" than there is to "was sexually abused as a child". The studies that show physical abuse maladjustment more severe than sexual abuse maladjustment are a bit of a paradox to most researchers, since they don't make sense in light of studies that show sex abuse victims having reasonably high rates of maladjustment as well. However, when you adjust for "family enviornment" you find that the sexual abuse itself has a relatively low coorilation.

In addition, on the topic, most recent studies of recividism amongst criminals show that Sex Offenders have the lowest rates of recividism amongst all classes of individuals. Since a few studies from the 1970s of high offender recividism are frequently used as the keystone for draconian "think of the children" legislation, these tend to be submarined by politicians. It is interesting to note the comments in the following AP article about a recent study from Alaska:

Study: Sex offender recidivism lowest among released convicts

This Department of Justice study shows that same-crime recividism of Child Molesters is around 3.3% (re-arrested for another sex offence on a child), whereas the same-crime recividism for most other classes of criminals is around 40% and sometimes as high as 80% in the case of robbery.

In addition, more than 60% of "recividist" (people re-arrested after being released for a felony) sex assault cases come from non-sex offenders. The one thing it points out is that statistically, sex offenders are more likely to be re-arrested for a sex offense, but their numbers are substantially lower than the class of all other criminals, therefore, the majority risk of sex offenders comes from people who were previously not convicted as sex offenders.

I'm wandering, so I'll just end it.

Remember, think of the children next time you vote.

Stew

Or compare to average sentences for violent crimes such as rape and kidnapping.

Jeezus. That is some schweet statistical cherry picking. Not surprising at all that 25% of the FEDERAL prison pop is illegal immigrants, very few crimes that result in incarceration are federal. The vast, vast, vast majority of crimes are violations of state & local laws, and dealt with at the state level. Last week's BOP report says there are 195,248 Federal prisoners. So according to your statistics, that's ~48,000 illegal immigrants in the federal Pen. Now, the last number I can find for both state & federal is for midyear 2005, 1,259,905 people in state prisons and 179,220 in Club Fed. (Reference here). I dunno how many people in state prisons are illegal, probably lots in California and quite a few less in Idaho. But you can't say 25% of the people in prison are illegal based on statistics of the 12% of the prison population that's in the federal system, which is where being here illegally is dealt with, unless you're trying to be intentionally deceitful.

Praising people who regularly jail dissidents for loving freedom just makes my stomach turn.

Yeah, mine too.

Being an addict/alcoholic may not get you fired, but showing up stoned on the job likely will, and I doubt the ADA will protect you. At http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/qandaeng.htm/ it has this to say:

Q. Are alcoholics covered by the ADA?

A. Yes. While a current illegal user of drugs is not protected by the ADA if an employer acts on the basis of such use, a person who currently uses alcohol is not automatically denied protection. An alcoholic is a person with a disability and is protected by the ADA if s/he is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job. An employer may be required to provide an accommodation to an alcoholic. However, an employer can discipline, discharge or deny employment to an alcoholic whose use of alcohol adversely affects job performance or conduct. An employer also may prohibit the use of alcohol in the workplace and can require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol.

This guy was doing the equivalent of drinking on the job.

Thats 12 murders and 13 road accidents, even if we believe the numbers that produced out of thin air with no citations. I see no reason to believe it because a politician says so - in case you did not know, it is not unknown for politicians to distort numbers, and these could be distorted in a number of ways.

Given how good Americans are at killing each other both by murder and in road accidents., the illegal immigrants contribution is not huge.

US death rates for both causes are very high by developed country standards. The numbers for Britain are approx 300 murders and 3000 accident victims, which even on a per-capita basis are much lower. The problem that needs to be solved lies elsewhere.

Race and IQ
Race and Crime
Race and Crime stats
Gov't stats

I think you'll find, as most retailers have, that if you sell machines without windos installed, MS will jack up your OEM licence fees.

If you have actual proof of this you would be able to take down Microsoft. Because this would directly violate the DOJ-MS antitrust settlement of 1994, where this then previous business practice is expressly forbidden. And has not been documented since (I'm afraid numerous /. references won't be good enough).

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f0000/0047.htm

Consider the Findings of Fact in the case, and see in particular Section H, Paragraphs 62 through 67.

The point concerning Intel is a red herring Courts typically don't recognize the "Sure I'm guilty but look over there! He's even more guilty than me!" defense.

I do agree that courts seem to be poorly equipped to deal with complicated technical issues and other elements of this case were absurd. That really doesn't undermine the relevant point, which wooshed past again. The acceptance by courts of suspect science like bite-mark analysis and their over-reliance on eyewitness testimony support your assertion that it's best if one minimizes interaction with courts.

Maybe I'm not being fair though, maybe I'm just taking it out of context or he could be loon. I'm still debating it.

Here's the context: In an April 25, 2005 letter to the Chief Branch Discipline Council, Florida Bar, Jack writes: (emphasis & reference added by me)

The reason I have repeatedly written the U.S. Attorney about the conduct of Mr. Kelley and Mr. Landes is that together they have, in my opinion, violated 18 USC 241, which is a criminal statute that prohibits the chilling of someone's constitutional rights. Mr. Landes says in his April 1, 2005, letter to you that such complaints to the federal prosecutor are "retaliation" and "ham-fisted."

Fine. If Mr. Landes thinks so then he can bring a malicious prosecution action against me. Maybe he can conjure up some kind of cause of action against Ohio-based Bob Evans Farm Sausage for my illicit use of ham on my fists. This is the first time I can recall a Bar complaint that brings pigs into the discussion.

I mean, wow...

Regardless of interoperability with Exchange, or ability of application to perform at the same level, Lets put all that aside and consider something...

ANY organization that wishes to do business with the government in the US (Canada as well) needs to provide an environment that plays well on the accessibility front. The tools just aren't there, and again, it is a decidedly un-sexy front for development. Until a robust accessibility program is implemented in Linux/Open Source applications, they cannot be used in business.

Do you really want to be the business being picked by the disabled?

ADA http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm

Canadian Version - http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/asp/gateway.asp?hr=/en/hip/ odi/documents/scottTaskForce/03_chap3.shtml&hs=pyp

Art
AccordSQA ( http://www.accordsqa.com/ )
Testing Automation Tools

Stop shouting, re-read my post, and do some basic research on the topic. I never said that anyone was forced to use Dos/Windows, just that they were forced to buy it.

I was quoting from the wrong version of the Final Judgement. I believe the correct version is here http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f218300/218339.htm.

IP infringment is not a criminal offence, so there is no right to a speedy trial here. Speedy Trial Act only applies to criminal trials.

this case is the equivelent of SCO telling the playground monitor that IBM stole their hacky sack and IBM saying it wasn't SCO's but Novells and they have the right to use it. Even if SCO were to win, IBM did not commit a "crime".

"People criticize MS for removing ActiveX, so..."

Not "people", bonehead. The Korean Government.

And the Korean Government didn't "criticize" MS - they advised their citizens to hold off on Vista just yet.

But if you want criticism of that semi-criminal, corrupt, dishonest organization, Microsoft, here's some:

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_c ost.html