Slashdot Mirror

I'd feel comfortable putting newbies in front of a Linux install.

What you say may very well be true, that for a newbie it isn't all that more complicated to start with Linux instead of Windows. However, if we are talking about reasonably experienced computer users, then I think the situation is different. I believe that the single most important factor that is holding back the spread of Open Source programs is the fact that Open Source developers are too proud to adopt a user interface that makes it easy for experienced Windows users to switch.

I know that this is swearing in the Linux church, but I'll say it anyway: If Linux is ever going to have a chance on the desktop, it will have to become as similar to the Windows user interface as is humanly possible. Why? The answer is extremely simple:

90% of all computer users are used to Windows

You can feel that it shouldn't be like that, and you can make hundreds of snide and clever remarks to the effect that Windows users are too stupid to recognize their own best interests, but you can't change the facts: at least 90% of the people who are using a computer today are using Windows.

It is not every day that a court of law makes an official market survey and releases it freely on the net, in line with the finest traditions of the Open Source movement. Yet it seems that the very people who really believe the most in the benefits of free and open information, are remarkably reluctant to use it when it's available. Think what you will in private, but please please listen to judge Jackson: if Linux is going to have any impact at all in the desktop market, it is Windows users that will have to be converted.

There are a number of good reasons to make the switch to Open Source --- open file formats, control over future license costs, etc., etc. --- but if it means that you have to spend six months cursing all the little things that are different, so that you can't focus on what you're supposed to be doing because you have to relearn all your automatic reflexes, how many people will decide that it's worth the effort?

A lawyer might perhaps consider switching from MS Word to StarOffice simply to make sure that all the files that he creates today can be opened and read on another computer ten years from now, when the case has finally reached the Supreme Court or whatever. But how may chargeable hours is he prepared to let it cost him in the first six months?

It somehow seems that a lot of the people who develop Open Source applications take a special pride in inventing amusing little pitfalls for the Windows user who might be prepared to switch camps. In StarOffice, the keyboard combination to insert a non-breaking space is "Ctrl-Space", rather than Word's "Ctrl-Shift-Space". Please, somebody, why? Of course this is something that one can relearn if one has to, but what's the point of it? The first time a would-be convert, who has been using non-breaking spaces in Word, tries to insert one in a text in StarOffice, it won't work. Whether he decides that non-breaking spaces are not available and that the product does not fulfill his needs, or interrupts what he was originally trying to achieve and starts exploring the help system to find out what it is that he has to do, he will not feel more favorably disposed towards Open Source programs for having tried one. And so unnecessarily.

I could recite any number of examples: if you type "Ctrl-A Ctrl-Return" to mark all posts in a newsgroup as read, Mozilla will instead choose to open a couple of hundred windows (one for each post in the newsgroup), which will cause the system to freeze, so that it has to be rebooted. Excellent marketing ploy.

To change some settings in Mozilla you should of course look under "Edit" in the menu system, and not under "Tools" like in all other programs in the Windows world. Brill

...only if you don't pay sysadmins, because it's

TCO(Mac) < TCO(MS-Win PC) big time (even MS-Windows people admit it).

And of course, it is not
Cost is how MS won its foothold in operating systems
but marketing, E&E, FUD against anything else and illegal monopoly exploits - that's what won MS its marketshare.

The Voting Rights Act, and subsequent rulings, impose additional constraints. As with Rule (4), they are not a formula, but they do require that race be taken into account to a degree. But race cannot be overused either. It is an error to either overweight or underweight it as a criterion. Since the rules are complex and fuzzy, districts in certain states (including Texas) must have the US Justice department approve a redistricting map before it can be used ("preclearance").

Yes, guns do cause more crime. The rest of the world learnt (sic) to read a bar chart years ago.. do they teach them in your schools yet?

You most certainly can go to jail for copyright infringement, if you live in the U.S.:

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

~~~

I believe people are horribly biased and will continue to be horribly biased until they understand that thier emotions are playing tricks on thier "rational" mind.

Thankfully for me, my emotions usually compell me to back up my assertions with something concrete, otherwise I feel vulnerable to attack.

Feeling pretty comfortable with my evidence, I'm going to come right out and assert.

Homicide and Violent Crimes are at an all time LOW since 1993. (Hell, it's as good at the 50's and 60's)

Seriously, these stats will shock the shit out of you.

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Teen Homicide Statistics

Violent Crime Statistics

From what I understand, the video game industry is now bigger than the movie industry (for a couple years now?). The games released in the last 10 years have set unprecendented levels violence and realism engaging the player in committing virtual crimes (Grand Theft Auto), from theft, murder all the way up to terrorism.

From what I remember, video games really started getting super-violent from 1993 onward. Isn't that when Doom popularized that realistic genre?

Also, the movies have gotten a lot worse, especially with the proliferation of CGI making violence and gore super realistic. Let's not forget the mass dissemination of porn making it accessible to anyone who can use a search engine.

So why did violence and homicide levels plummet to a THIRD of levels in 1993? Why aren't all the school suffering from shootings on a daily basis?

Too many people assume that video games are making our society more violent. This is clearly untrue. Instead, The reverse has happened. Why?

Is this because of a change in policy? Is being tough and violent now uncool? Could video games have played a role in making society less violent by allowing people to release thier aggression? Was it the result of a lot of things?

I believe people are horribly biased and will continue to be horribly biased until they understand that thier emotions are playing tricks on thier "rational" mind.

Thankfully for me, my emotions usually compell me to back up my assertions with something concrete, otherwise I feel vulnerable to attack.

Feeling pretty comfortable with my evidence, I'm going to come right out and assert.

Homicide and Violent Crimes are at an all time LOW since 1993. (Hell, it's as good at the 50's and 60's)

Seriously, these stats will shock the shit out of you.

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Teen Homicide Statistics

Violent Crime Statistics

From what I understand, the video game industry is now bigger than the movie industry (for a couple years now?). The games released in the last 10 years have set unprecendented levels violence and realism engaging the player in committing virtual crimes (Grand Theft Auto), from theft, murder all the way up to terrorism.

From what I remember, video games really started getting super-violent from 1993 onward. Isn't that when Doom popularized that realistic genre?

Also, the movies have gotten a lot worse, especially with the proliferation of CGI making violence and gore super realistic. Let's not forget the mass dissemination of porn making it accessible to anyone who can use a search engine.

So why did violence and homicide levels plummet to a THIRD of levels in 1993? Why aren't all the school suffering from shootings on a daily basis?

Too many people assume that video games are making our society more violent. This is clearly untrue. Instead, The reverse has happened. Why?

Is this because of a change in policy? Is being tough and violent now uncool? Could video games have played a role in making society less violent by allowing people to release thier aggression? Was it the result of a lot of things?

I believe people are horribly biased and will continue to be horribly biased until they understand that thier emotions are playing tricks on thier "rational" mind.

Thankfully for me, my emotions usually compell me to back up my assertions with something concrete, otherwise I feel vulnerable to attack.

Feeling pretty comfortable with my evidence, I'm going to come right out and assert.

Homicide and Violent Crimes are at an all time LOW since 1993. (Hell, it's as good at the 50's and 60's)

Seriously, these stats will shock the shit out of you.

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Teen Homicide Statistics

Violent Crime Statistics

From what I understand, the video game industry is now bigger than the movie industry (for a couple years now?). The games released in the last 10 years have set unprecendented levels violence and realism engaging the player in committing virtual crimes (Grand Theft Auto), from theft, murder all the way up to terrorism.

From what I remember, video games really started getting super-violent from 1993 onward. Isn't that when Doom popularized that realistic genre?

Also, the movies have gotten a lot worse, especially with the proliferation of CGI making violence and gore super realistic. Let's not forget the mass dissemination of porn making it accessible to anyone who can use a search engine.

So why did violence and homicide levels plummet to a THIRD of levels in 1993? Why aren't all the school suffering from shootings on a daily basis?

Too many people assume that video games are making our society more violent. This is clearly untrue. Instead, The reverse has happened. Why?

Is this because of a change in policy? Is being tough and violent now uncool? Could video games have played a role in making society less violent by allowing people to release thier aggression? Was it the result of a lot of things?

A Monopoly is "Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: 'Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals' (Milton Friedman). "

The British East India Company used their power to inflate prices on imported tea. Then, the British Government (which owned the British East India Company) taxed that tea. Hrmm...Does anyone in the class know what the Boston Tea Party was?

Other Monopolies...Everyone knows Rockefeller Plaza, correct? And Carnegie Melon University? And J. P. Morgan? John D. Rockefeller was a monopoly owner in the late 1870s. He controlled the whole of oil refinery. He didn't care who drilled for it, or who sold it, he just refined it. 96% of it. He cut prices so low that other businesses couldn't compete. Andrew (I believe) Carnegie controlled steel production. He controlled every part from the mining of its components to the shipping. He used a new process (I believe Bessemer...it's been a few years) which made steel cheaper, stronger, and easily manufacturered. J. P. Morgan? The money guy: He controlled most of the banks in America. He actually was so rich and so powerful he brought the whole nation out of depression. He brought all of the bankers under his control, said "OK, how much can you give to the government?", "And you?", "And what about you?". He brought the whole damn nation out of a small but potentially disastrous depression.

Roosevelt passed the Sherman Anti-trust Act. From this act, "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. "

Source: USDOJ

There are other anti-trust laws (Clayton Act, also on the above page). The purpose of them is so that no one corporation or organization can come to control a large part of any market. It is a protection to the consumers. We have been without protection from the RIAA for years. We've been forced to pay their steep prices for a long time, until the idea of Napster came around.

US Lawmakers must remember the past. They must ignore the few million they got from the RIAA in their campaigns. The must not pass any sort of legislation such as what the RIAA is aiming for. The RIAA is a monopoly. To exempt them would only give a hundred new arms to the octopus that it already is. Write your local congress-critter and express your views.

(Footnote: Please excuse any historical errors. I am a history buff, but it's been three years since I studied American History. I can ensure you it's mostly accurate...)

And then there's the whole issue of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Some samples of his "work".

The charges.

Apparently he's not the sharpest spoon in the drawer as he not only "email bombed" the Phillies management with rants such as this one, but also, obviously, posted the exact material to Usenet.

Read some, there's some quality trollin' ('though not as refined as the infamous "cordial boy" or King Tut).

-dameron

Someone is blowing smoke at you!
As a Sysadmin you have full rights to anything on the servers and LAN that you or your employers own. Wiretapping does not come into play unless the government does it, or the government has somone do it as their agent. The only type of recording employers can not do is voice without the notifying their employees that they are subject to monitoring and recording. (However in Penna, you have to have the consent of both parties for a voice recording.)

Email belongs to the boss, all your surfing habits belong to the boss. Hell anything you do on your home machine is subject to whatever your employer wants to do if you connect to their network and use just one piece of software supplied by them.

Tell your source to try looking at the laws on search and siezure before giving you false legal info.
There is no "Title X", Many statutes and laws have titles that exceed X (10 in Roman Numerals) but Title X of what law? what statute?
IANAL, but IAALS (I am a Law Student) and I suggest that you try reading:
ISBN 0-8493-1192-6, Cyber Crime Investigator's Field Guide by Bruce Middleton, Appendix G
or just go to US DOJ Computer Crime
The Search and Seizure manual is here: S&S Manual.pfd
HTML
Short excerpt from page 7 of the pdf:
4. Private Searches
The Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches conducted by private parties who are not acting as agents of the government.
The Fourth Amendment "is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official." United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984) (internal quotation omitted). As a result, no violation of the Fourth Amendment occurs when a private individual acting on his own accord conducts a search and makes the results available to law enforcement. See id. For example, in United States v. Hall, 142 F.3d 988 (7th Cir. 1998), the defendant took his computer to a private computer specialist for repairs. In the course of evaluating the defendant's computer, the repairman observed that many files stored on the computer had filenames characteristic of child pornography.
The repairman accessed the files, saw that they did in fact contain child pornography, and then contacted the state police. The tip led to a warrant, the defendant's arrest, and his conviction for child pornography offenses. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit rejected the defendant's claim that the repairman's warrantless search through the computer violated the Fourth Amendment.
Because the repairman's search was conducted on his own, the court held, the Fourth Amendment did not apply to the search or his later description of the evidence to the state police. See id. at 993. See also United States v. Kennedy, 81 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1112 (D. Kan. 2000)
(concluding that searches of defendant's computer over the Internet by an anonymous caller and employees of a private ISP did not violate Fourth Amendment because there was no evidence that the government was involved in the search).

c) Employer Searches in Private-Sector Workplaces Warrantless workplace searches by private employers rarely violate the Fourth Amendment. So long as the employer is not acting as an instrument or agent of the Government at the time of the search, the search is a private search and the Fourth Amendment does not apply. See Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 614 (1989).

Now, if you or your employer is privy to illegal activity online, you are duty bound to report it, or face the consequences as a conspirator. Whoever is giving you that "title X" line is setting you up for a fall!

Someone is blowing smoke at you!
As a Sysadmin you have full rights to anything on the servers and LAN that you or your employers own. Wiretapping does not come into play unless the government does it, or the government has somone do it as their agent. The only type of recording employers can not do is voice without the notifying their employees that they are subject to monitoring and recording. (However in Penna, you have to have the consent of both parties for a voice recording.)

Email belongs to the boss, all your surfing habits belong to the boss. Hell anything you do on your home machine is subject to whatever your employer wants to do if you connect to their network and use just one piece of software supplied by them.

Tell your source to try looking at the laws on search and siezure before giving you false legal info.
There is no "Title X", Many statutes and laws have titles that exceed X (10 in Roman Numerals) but Title X of what law? what statute?
IANAL, but IAALS (I am a Law Student) and I suggest that you try reading:
ISBN 0-8493-1192-6, Cyber Crime Investigator's Field Guide by Bruce Middleton, Appendix G
or just go to US DOJ Computer Crime
The Search and Seizure manual is here: S&S Manual.pfd
HTML
Short excerpt from page 7 of the pdf:
4. Private Searches
The Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches conducted by private parties who are not acting as agents of the government.
The Fourth Amendment "is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official." United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984) (internal quotation omitted). As a result, no violation of the Fourth Amendment occurs when a private individual acting on his own accord conducts a search and makes the results available to law enforcement. See id. For example, in United States v. Hall, 142 F.3d 988 (7th Cir. 1998), the defendant took his computer to a private computer specialist for repairs. In the course of evaluating the defendant's computer, the repairman observed that many files stored on the computer had filenames characteristic of child pornography.
The repairman accessed the files, saw that they did in fact contain child pornography, and then contacted the state police. The tip led to a warrant, the defendant's arrest, and his conviction for child pornography offenses. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit rejected the defendant's claim that the repairman's warrantless search through the computer violated the Fourth Amendment.
Because the repairman's search was conducted on his own, the court held, the Fourth Amendment did not apply to the search or his later description of the evidence to the state police. See id. at 993. See also United States v. Kennedy, 81 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1112 (D. Kan. 2000)
(concluding that searches of defendant's computer over the Internet by an anonymous caller and employees of a private ISP did not violate Fourth Amendment because there was no evidence that the government was involved in the search).

c) Employer Searches in Private-Sector Workplaces Warrantless workplace searches by private employers rarely violate the Fourth Amendment. So long as the employer is not acting as an instrument or agent of the Government at the time of the search, the search is a private search and the Fourth Amendment does not apply. See Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 614 (1989).

Now, if you or your employer is privy to illegal activity online, you are duty bound to report it, or face the consequences as a conspirator. Whoever is giving you that "title X" line is setting you up for a fall!

Someone is blowing smoke at you!
As a Sysadmin you have full rights to anything on the servers and LAN that you or your employers own. Wiretapping does not come into play unless the government does it, or the government has somone do it as their agent. The only type of recording employers can not do is voice without the notifying their employees that they are subject to monitoring and recording. (However in Penna, you have to have the consent of both parties for a voice recording.)

Email belongs to the boss, all your surfing habits belong to the boss. Hell anything you do on your home machine is subject to whatever your employer wants to do if you connect to their network and use just one piece of software supplied by them.

Tell your source to try looking at the laws on search and siezure before giving you false legal info.
There is no "Title X", Many statutes and laws have titles that exceed X (10 in Roman Numerals) but Title X of what law? what statute?
IANAL, but IAALS (I am a Law Student) and I suggest that you try reading:
ISBN 0-8493-1192-6, Cyber Crime Investigator's Field Guide by Bruce Middleton, Appendix G
or just go to US DOJ Computer Crime
The Search and Seizure manual is here: S&S Manual.pfd
HTML
Short excerpt from page 7 of the pdf:
4. Private Searches
The Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches conducted by private parties who are not acting as agents of the government.
The Fourth Amendment "is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official." United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984) (internal quotation omitted). As a result, no violation of the Fourth Amendment occurs when a private individual acting on his own accord conducts a search and makes the results available to law enforcement. See id. For example, in United States v. Hall, 142 F.3d 988 (7th Cir. 1998), the defendant took his computer to a private computer specialist for repairs. In the course of evaluating the defendant's computer, the repairman observed that many files stored on the computer had filenames characteristic of child pornography.
The repairman accessed the files, saw that they did in fact contain child pornography, and then contacted the state police. The tip led to a warrant, the defendant's arrest, and his conviction for child pornography offenses. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit rejected the defendant's claim that the repairman's warrantless search through the computer violated the Fourth Amendment.
Because the repairman's search was conducted on his own, the court held, the Fourth Amendment did not apply to the search or his later description of the evidence to the state police. See id. at 993. See also United States v. Kennedy, 81 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1112 (D. Kan. 2000)
(concluding that searches of defendant's computer over the Internet by an anonymous caller and employees of a private ISP did not violate Fourth Amendment because there was no evidence that the government was involved in the search).

c) Employer Searches in Private-Sector Workplaces Warrantless workplace searches by private employers rarely violate the Fourth Amendment. So long as the employer is not acting as an instrument or agent of the Government at the time of the search, the search is a private search and the Fourth Amendment does not apply. See Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 614 (1989).

Now, if you or your employer is privy to illegal activity online, you are duty bound to report it, or face the consequences as a conspirator. Whoever is giving you that "title X" line is setting you up for a fall!

Correctional Populations in the United States, 1996

The article says that it, and the earlier "No Electronic Theft Act" (who's heard of that one?), make copyright infrigement a felony.

We have more people in jail now than the USSR under Stalin.

Please. May we assume you have a source for that "insightful" fact? Instead of simply spouting off what you overheard at the last frat party, how about some actual numbers.

US Prison population, Dec 31 2002 - 2,033,331
Most of the increase in recent years has been due to violent offenses.

Stalin's era - Approx 4 million prisoners in the camps for political repression.

I'm not disagreeing that 2 million is a lot of people. But are they all there for "file swapping, pot smoking and wearing trenchcoats"? If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Only on /. is blatant ignorance modded as Insightful.

We have more people in jail now than the USSR under Stalin.

Please. May we assume you have a source for that "insightful" fact? Instead of simply spouting off what you overheard at the last frat party, how about some actual numbers.

US Prison population, Dec 31 2002 - 2,033,331
Most of the increase in recent years has been due to violent offenses.

Stalin's era - Approx 4 million prisoners in the camps for political repression.

I'm not disagreeing that 2 million is a lot of people. But are they all there for "file swapping, pot smoking and wearing trenchcoats"? If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Only on /. is blatant ignorance modded as Insightful.

No, only in very specific instances is copyright infringement an offense, above some thresholds. Most important of them is making profits off the sale of illegal copies.

Obviously you haven't heard of the No Electronic Theft Act. Profit is no longer a requirement.

(note that I don't call them a monopolist, as they aren't)

Yes, they are.

The argument can be made that the 'theft' involved is any revenue that would have been made had to purchased the content, rather than downloading it.

At any rate, copyright violation can be prosecuted criminally (at least in the US; I suspect other Berne Convention signatories have similar provisions in place, but I'm no expert in international law - I'm not even an expert in US law ;). Take a look at 17 USC 506, for starters.

Along with the "No Electronic Theft" (NET) Act. Theft, mind.

What, are we trying to modify SCO's google result now?

(Not intended as a troll, I am posting to clarify why Novell has remained untouched by the younger masses that havent been smitten down by the touch of their anti-piracy department. Any use of language is expressed to express the full extent of the situations.)

If Novell didnt fuck over some of the younger folk over and over with their licensing scheme, some of us would have actually tried Netware and the like. I dont mind being able to turn on a server, and not have to reboot due to software errors. Then again, they're the kind that'll steal a kid's hardware cluster and give it to a public school just because they wanted revenge granted via the court system.

It's a pity that they did great work, given that they do well for storage and directory applications, but it's a bad idea to use their licensing system to bastardize an otherwise decent linux based product line, and screw another generation over.

I'm sure some of you will cry "they were only protecting their assets", but they arent making any friends when they flaunt that donation over other than the kind that you get for forking the cash for Business Software Alliance membership, with benefit of freely deceiving courts into reducing individuals to smoldering ashes.

• The government is too busy busting bong makers and other "terrorists" destabilizing the American Way of Life.
• Big business has done a great job of undermining all aspects of government regulation of business activity -- it took outright criminal theft at Tyco, Worldcom and Enron before the government cared. Microsoft is allowed to run an illegal monopoly with no penality. Fraud, churn and deception at almost every investment bank and mutual fund. The examples go on, but the basic idea is that the government is unwilling to go after massive corporate fraud unless there's a PR risk to the President.
• More insidious I think is the level of "responsible" corporate complicity in spam. There was a great article in Sunday's Minneapolis Star Tribune about the level of involvement by businesses one would assume have too much at stake to get involved in spam; they don't spam directly, but they're more than willing to deal in email info, which ultimately leads them to deal with spammers. Equifax, Experion and so on are willing participants in linking email with credit information and other personal data. Anyway, these people are "Platinum Club" members of the Republican political machine. Exposing them to news articles about spam and black-hat activities, even with a degree or two of seperation, is a major political problem for the Republicans. Republicans also depend heavily on the "car dealer" economic-level entrepenuer, the local bigshots who bankroll house seats. This socioeconomic group more than likely has a lot of involvement in the direct marketing game, and they can't be pissed off, either.
• There's also some "legitimate" ideological rationalization. The Republicans are staunch allies of anything associated with corporate free speech. Any limitation on what or how a corporation can send its message runs into a whole gauntlent of Republican ideaologues who insist on the corporation's "right" to free speech in all realms, including the commercial.

I could tell you that guns kill people and animals, and that's what they're designed for.

No. Guns are tools designed to throw a projectile(s) accurately to the point you aim at. If your target is people or animals, the projectile may cause fatal wounds. It's only a consequence from your action.

Many guns are used to punch holes on paper. If you don't believe me check this site.

Perhaps 20,000 people in any given year die to "gun violence," ...

If act of suicide is considered "violence," then 30,000 is more accurate. But excluding suicide and accidental deaths, the number will decrease below 20,000, close to 10,000 in recent years. About 50% of gun deaths are due to suicide. Can you blame guns for 15,000-20,000/year of suicidal deaths?

Guns are tools. In your justice, you can blame a Makita saw for cutting your finger off. Sorry, I don't believe it.

1. UK residents are 5 times less likely to be victims of violent crime than US ones
2. Firearms are more often involved in violent crimes in the United States than in England. According to 1996 police statistics, firearms were used in 68% of U.S. murders but 7% of English murders, and 41% of U.S. robberies but 5% of English robberies.
3. the U.S. murder rate as measured in police statistics was 5.7 times that of the UK's
4. the U.S. rape rate as measured in police statistics was 3 times that of the UK's

1. UK residents are 5 times less likely to be victims of violent crime than US ones
2. Firearms are more often involved in violent crimes in the United States than in England. According to 1996 police statistics, firearms were used in 68% of U.S. murders but 7% of English murders, and 41% of U.S. robberies but 5% of English robberies.
3. the U.S. murder rate as measured in police statistics was 5.7 times that of the UK's
4. the U.S. rape rate as measured in police statistics was 3 times that of the UK's

rofl

well i guess you pulled those facts from somewhere (your ass?) but i actually went and looked for some statistics.

According to latest police statistics (1996), is the serious crime rate higher in the United States or England?

In 1996, rates of murder, rape, and robbery recorded by the police were all higher in the United States than in England, while assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft rates were all higher in England than in the United States.
According to police statistics for 1996 --

-the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 times higher than England's (0.074 per 1,000 population versus 0.013) (figure 5)
-the U.S. rape rate was about 3 times higher than England's (0.71 per 1,000 female population versus 0.22) (figure 6)
-the U.S. robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than England's (2.0 versus 1.4) (figure 7)
-the English assault rate was 1.1 times higher than the U.S. rate (4.4 versus 3.9) (figure 8)
-the English burglary rate was 2.4 times higher than the U.S. rate (22.4 versus 9.4) (figure 9)
-the English motor vehicle theft rate was 1.8 times higher than the U.S. rate (9.5 versus 5.3) (figure 10).

i think i would rather be burgaled or have my car stolen than raped or murdered. also you can see that the percentages are not that much higher for england (1-2.5 times) than the us (1.4-5.7) in the much more violent crimes.

in fact theres a whole report here on the differences between american and english crime rates. and before you say, that studies dated it ends in 1996 -- the english have had the law banning firearm ownership since 1953 (sorry no source) and the first gun laws were put in palce in 1903 i believe.

murder is mostly a crime of passion. if i had a gun on me, i would have killed people a few times. of course, afterwords i went home smoked a joint and decided it was much better than being a fugitive on the run.

only people who are afraid need guns. or perhaps if your country doesnt have a military/police or a standing army ala iraq.

rofl

well i guess you pulled those facts from somewhere (your ass?) but i actually went and looked for some statistics.

According to latest police statistics (1996), is the serious crime rate higher in the United States or England?

In 1996, rates of murder, rape, and robbery recorded by the police were all higher in the United States than in England, while assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft rates were all higher in England than in the United States.
According to police statistics for 1996 --

-the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 times higher than England's (0.074 per 1,000 population versus 0.013) (figure 5)
-the U.S. rape rate was about 3 times higher than England's (0.71 per 1,000 female population versus 0.22) (figure 6)
-the U.S. robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than England's (2.0 versus 1.4) (figure 7)
-the English assault rate was 1.1 times higher than the U.S. rate (4.4 versus 3.9) (figure 8)
-the English burglary rate was 2.4 times higher than the U.S. rate (22.4 versus 9.4) (figure 9)
-the English motor vehicle theft rate was 1.8 times higher than the U.S. rate (9.5 versus 5.3) (figure 10).

i think i would rather be burgaled or have my car stolen than raped or murdered. also you can see that the percentages are not that much higher for england (1-2.5 times) than the us (1.4-5.7) in the much more violent crimes.

in fact theres a whole report here on the differences between american and english crime rates. and before you say, that studies dated it ends in 1996 -- the english have had the law banning firearm ownership since 1953 (sorry no source) and the first gun laws were put in palce in 1903 i believe.

murder is mostly a crime of passion. if i had a gun on me, i would have killed people a few times. of course, afterwords i went home smoked a joint and decided it was much better than being a fugitive on the run.

only people who are afraid need guns. or perhaps if your country doesnt have a military/police or a standing army ala iraq.

Read these for more details:

Indictment

Affidat

Press Release

Read these for more details:

Indictment

Affidat

Press Release

Read these for more details:

Indictment

Affidat

Press Release

The DOJ has an archive with the info.

And look google is even nice enough to give us her contact info just in case you want to send her your best wishes :)

Did DOJ follow its own published guide to Exemption 5? Slog through DOJ Guide to FOIA Exemption 5 and decide for yourself.

Wal-mart has a lot of power, yes. But the critical point is that they do not have monopoly power in their market. Wal-mart's $244 billion is an insignifigant fraction of the retail outlet market. Microsoft's $52 billion represents over 95% of their market. Court's findings of fact.

That is why Microsoft is far more capable of causing harm than Wal-mart, even though Wal-Mart is almost five times larger.

-

If you would like to see these documents yourself you can go ahead and make your own FOIA request.

Some instructions can be found at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/foia/howtofoia.ht ml

The contacts addresses can be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/foiacontacts.htm

If you are interested in making the government work for you then issue requests! There aren't many easier ways to get government information that you are interested in.

When you issue a request, the government is required to submit an answer within within 20 business days. Furthermore, if they deny your request they must give you a reason and you have the ability to appeal and or sue. If you are publishing the information you obtain for the public good you shouldn't even have to pay for the request.

Regarding the DOJ/MS agreement, it appears that paragraph III.H is the one relevant to the present issue. Can't say I understand that paragraph yet.

I think that the pertinent section is this:

C. Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any OEM licensee from exercising any of the following options or alternatives:

...

3. Launching automatically, at the conclusion of the initial boot sequence or subsequent boot sequences, or upon connections to or disconnections from the Internet, any Non-Microsoft Middleware if Microsoft Middleware that provides similar functionality would otherwise be launched automatically at that time, provided that any such Non-Microsoft Middleware displays on the desktop no user interface or a user interface of similar size and shape to the user interface displayed by the corresponding Microsoft Middleware.

Thanks for the tip. Here's a link to the actual act.

The act is an amendment to the US copyright law under titles 17, chapters 1 and 5, and 18, chapter 113.

If I am understanding the law(s) correctly (IANAL), downloading a file would be a violation of title 17, chapter 5, which states that anyone expecting to recieve an unauthorized copy would be punnishable, but those distributing unauthorized copies would not be guilty until they have distributed more than $1000.00 in retail value of copyrighted works during a 180 day period.

It seems that it is safer to rip and distribute (upload) than it is to download. Could such a law be enforcable? That would be like making it against the law to buy any amount of drugs, no matter how small, but legal to sell drugs, as long as you sell less than $1000.00 dollars during any 180 day period. How f*cked up is that?

Am I reading this correctly? Any lawyers out there?

Put it like this. You know when you get the occasional search results even in Kazaa Lite K++ that for some reason are always remotely queued, and the host disappears, or might not even be publicly routable or a transient BGP? You know that strange traffic between supernodes?

That's us. We are direct action anti-RIAA activists, using vulnerabilities in the Fasttrack protocol to poison the Kazaa network's results just enough to throw doubt into the mix. We may or may not be doing the same for Gnutella, though we hear Shareaza's G2 is good.

While not really affecting the users of the network, try asking Overpeer, Mediaforce and so on why they've been getting all these bogus results. In fact, try asking where the hell Mac Granny came from, how, and why.

The doubt isn't usually enough to impinge on a civil case, sadly, they don't actually need proof for that just a preponderance of evidence, it could probably never be unless we flooded the network into oblivion... (the Mac Granny was, we feel, us getting lucky or the RIAA slipping up) but ask yourself why the RIAA aren't using the NET Act for criminal prosecutions? Because they can't PROVE anything. They don't even download the files to check; if they did, they'd find they were garbage, but apparently shared by a legitimate user who's turned off sharing. And remember: "For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement." - 17 U.S.C. sub.sec. 506(a)(2)

The P2P networks' greatest weaknesses and vulnerabilities, in the absence of anonymity, can be their strength. They seek to drive the pirates underground, back into their little blacknet cells... but today's blacknets are tomorrow's release groups in training.

And once a good anonymous p2p system eventually comes along (obviously not Freenet, and even more obviously not ES5), one that hits critical mass like Napster and Kazaa did, with the peak speed of BitTorrent but virtually firewall-proof, highly attack-resistant and virtually untraceable... what will be our enemies' recourse then, now that their tactics have trained new cells of hardcore pirates releasing even more quality material impossibly early for the masses to leech anonymously?

What are they going to do? Sue themselves for, by litigation, finally evolving a p2p network they can't fight? No, they're going to threaten the users, whether they know they're sharing or not. That's where we come in again... and where I sign out.

Look up the budget of NSA and tell me what it does. It spends all its time spying on its own citizens, rather than enemies....CIA spends a chunk of its resources spying on its own citizens too. It's hard to prove this so you either believe me or not. Examples include tracking civil rights activists during the civil rights era in the 60's, attempting to brainwash citizens using LSD (look up the origin of LSD), trafficking drugs to support its activities (drugs hurt citizens), etc.... more recently, Department of Homeland Security has been trying to get some programs going but haven't had much success (eg. getting utility workers to spy on citizens, establishing toll-free snitch line, Total Information Awareness, etc). I expect that they already spend a few million on such programs, which haven't been publicized. In about 10 years, expect their budget on these clandestine activities to zoom towards $1billion, just like how the CIA and DEA have. Right now (for 2004), the Department of Homeland security has a budget of around $36.2 billion. I suspect around 0.1% is spent spying on innocient citizens (36.5million) and you can expect this to increase as the department increases it size (due to bureacratization, as DEA and CIA have).

Of course, you probably don't believe any of this. Just like how you probably have no idea that the DEA spends $1.8billion on the "war" on drugs.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

An entire document has been written and distributed abour my case throughout federal offices with my name changed, and I laughed when my friend (who happens to be let's say be in the know) showed it to me. Purpose of my case from my perspective? Politics. It's all about money nothing more and when federal agencies need more funding come crunch time what do they do?

In recent years, The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York has been in the forefront of investigating and prosecuting cybercrime and intellectual property crimes. These include the arrest of Kazakhstan nationals in London in connection with the attempted extortion of Bloomberg, L.P.; the prosecution of computer security specialist Jesus Oquendo for computer hacking and electronic eavesdropping; the prosecution of a law firm paralegal for the electronic theft of a litigation trial plan; the prosecution of Raymond Torricelli for intruding into NASA computers; the theft of proprietary business plans belonging to MasterCard and the attempted sale of those plans to representatives of Visa; and the first prosecution of Internet sports gambling operations.

Now to tell you some more little nitpicky things, that weren't allowed to come out in trial because the prosecutor objected and got his wish.. A plane ticket showing I was en route to San Jose from New York at the time on of the attacks occurred. Pretty difficult for me to hack while in the friendly skies. Secondly, I had a mail.com account for mailing list stuff (SecurityFocus, NANOG, etc) that was accessed from Indiana, England, and a slew of other places I had never been. Being its was a mail.com account I never bothered strong passwords. Thirdly, the company owners testified they left their username/password combos on PostIt notes attached to their machines.

I could go on for days with shit, but it's useless, as stated most people have that "Well he's guily because the feds say so.", or "he must be guilty because he's on the 'hacker scene': attitude. To be honest I'm not mad, saddned by the entire thing, but I've managed to learn 4 new languages, a shit load of stuff about the financial markets from White Collar trixters who defrauded companies for millions. And I managed to take some time and focus on myself, study spirituality lightly etal. So I'm not mad, just saddened

Jesus, is that you?

The court may have let Microsoft off without punishment, but the DOJ case still managed to reveal some of the truth about Microsoft, and its leaders. As a result, anyone who cares about the future of their business knows better than to trust Microsoft.

As the evidence in the DOJ case showed, if you are dependent on Microsoft software, then Microsoft will use that fact to push you around:

> Gates informed those Microsoft executives most closely involved in the negotiations with Apple that the discussions "have not been going well at all." One of the several reasons for this, Gates wrote, was that "Apple let us down on the browser by making Netscape the standard install." Gates then reported that he had already called Apple's CEO (who at the time was Gil Amelio) to ask "how we should announce the cancellation of Mac Office..."

> [Microsoft executive in charge of Mac Office, Ben Waldman:] Sounds like we give them the HTML control for nothing except making IE the "standard browser for Apple?" I think they should be doing this anyway. Though the language of the agreement uses the word "encourage," I think that the spirit is that Apple should be using it everywhere and if they don't do it, then we can use Office as a club.

> Eric Engstrom, a Microsoft executive with responsibility for multimedia development, wrote to his superiors that one of Microsoft's goals was getting "Intel to stop helping Sun create Java Multimedia APIs, especially ones that run well (ie native implementations) on Windows." Engstrom proposed achieving this goal by offering Intel the following deal: Microsoft would incorporate into the Windows API set any multimedia interfaces that Intel agreed to not help Sun incorporate into the Java class libraries.

If a government values the freedom of its citizens, that government can't allow itself to become vulnerable to such pressure tactics.

And that's why governments should only use Open Source software. And even when they don't, the last company that governments should be doing busines with is Microsoft.

>I read the article. There is nothing in there that specifies he hacked into a desktop computer or someones workstation

"Carlson, "a disgruntled Phillies fan," hacked into computers of unsuspecting users and from those computers launched spam e-mail attacks"

Do I have to post it a third time, or are you getting the message yet? Hint: stop typing, read the article and the indictment, and comprehend what you're reading.

This episode brought to you by the numbers "1" and "0" and the letters "D" and "T", as in "1D10T"

'3. As is further described in this indictment, the defendant ALLAN ERIC CARLSON violated various federal criminal statutes by "hacking," that is, gaining unauthorized access to the computers of other persons on the Internet; sending thousands of e-mail messages from the victim's computer; and "spoofing," that is, falsifying the return address of these e-mails[...]'

He's indicted for actual cracking, not just for the From: spoofing. Are we all clear on that now? You may now commence spouting your usual angry uninformed opinions.

Perhaps you could take 30 second to actually click on the provided links?

Read the indictment: '3. As is further described in this indictment, the defendant ALLAN ERIC CARLSON violated varies federal ciminal statutes by "hacking," that is, gaining unauthorized access to the computers of other persons on the Internet; sending thousands of e-mail messages from the victim's computer; and "spoofing," that is, falsifying the return address of these e-mails[...]'

>Did he really "hack" into thier accounts

It's right to be highly cynical about journalists, but they are explicit: "Carlson, "a disgruntled Phillies fan," hacked into computers of unsuspecting users and from those computers launched spam e-mail attacks"

More importantly, it's in the indictment as well: "sending thousands of email messages from the victim's computers"

Perhaps you could spend 30 seconds clicking on the provided links next time.

Chuckle. I'm "pro-copyright" in that I think it was a good and beneficial thing before it was expanded and distorted.

It's hard to say, as it was such a different world when copyright law was initially passed. Printing presses were expensive, now most households have a computer with internet access. Copyright law was probably even less beneficial back then, as authors could easily have used contractual agreements to protect their works for a decent period of time. But I digress...

Under traditional copyright law P2P was perfectly legal.

I wasn't aware of that, but I'll take your word for it.

So, being "anti-copyright", what are your thoughts on copyright being limited to restrictions on commercial use? Eliminate the criminal clauses and eliminate statutory damages.

As for eliminating criminal clauses for non-commercial copyright infringement, it seemed to work well enough before the passage of the NET Act, which was the first to make non-commercial copyright infringement criminal.

As far as eliminating statutory damages, that would be nice too. In fact, combined with eliminating criminal penalties, it'd solve pretty much all of my active (as opposed to theoretical) problems with copyright law. On the other hand, I'm not sure what would be the point of having copyright law any more, if you were going to restrict it that much. With regard to music, software, and anything else that can be transferred over the internet, why would anyone pay for it any more? Sure, artists would still make money by providing services, but this can happen without any copyright law at all.

For example commercial radio would continue to have to pay the same fees they do now. Advertizing revenue is still commercial exploitation of the music.

My initial reaction was that commercial radio wouldn't be able to survive in such a situation. After all, people would be able to make their own CDs for the price of the media. But you know what, maybe it would. People still would want to hear whatever's new and popular, and eliminating ASCAP fees wouldn't give non-commercial radio that much of an advantage. So maybe that answers my question about how this copyright law would be different from nothing.

The only company with enough bathtubs to supply the worldwide demand for crack. Also, the only company with an actual crack team of lawyers. How much longer till the DEA shuts them down?