Slashdot Mirror

I don't know why OS/2 failed. Fact is that many people liked it but didn't manage to get a copy. By now, I would be very surprised to find people wanting to run OS/2 for anything other than backward compatibility or geeky curiosity. I don't think OS/2 still has much to offer on a technical front, and whatever UI benefits it had have likely been duplicated elsewhere. Of course, I could be wrong...not having seen a working OS/2 instance for years.

I don't know what percent of the US population is imprisoned, but the US has one of the largest prison populations in the world. Hold on... According to the Department of Justice in 2004 there were "486 sentenced inmates per 100,000 U.S." According to wiki "The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world at 737 persons imprisoned per 100,000" and it references DOJ document Prisoners in 2005 [pfd].

I don't know what percent of the US population is imprisoned, but the US has one of the largest prison populations in the world. Hold on... According to the Department of Justice in 2004 there were "486 sentenced inmates per 100,000 U.S." According to wiki "The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world at 737 persons imprisoned per 100,000" and it references DOJ document Prisoners in 2005 [pfd].

Package management is normally left up to the distro. So if the distro sucks, then it also has a sucky or absent package management system and no maintenance of major packages.

So the only obstacle the Firefox is facing is the anti-competitive nature of M$ Windows maintenance tools: the tools appear to only support M$ cruft, so when the 'reformat and reinstall' mantra is invoked -- poof -- gone are the competing products that staff had to wheel, deal, and wheedle to get into place. Eventually they run out of time and let the M$ have their way.

RHEL / Fedora, YellowDog, Mandriva, Debian, Ubuntu, Slackware, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc. all have no problem keeping FireFox packages up to date. What's the problem with the IT staff mentioned in the article? I thought the reason to go with a big money vendor was to get the big money support the PHBs / MBAs are always talking out of their asses about. Can't the IT staff mentioned in the article press the vendor to do what it is ostensibly contracted to do for them?

It could be worse. Back when the FBI was taking down the New York Mafia, the FBI didn't pay the bill on some of their wiretaps. The billing software then billed the other party on the connection, the Mafia guys being wiretapped. It's in Guliani's book about that operation.

Wiretaps are a billable service. See this DoJ document. Search for "Wiretap Fees" in the document. A typical 30-day wiretap costs from $250 to $2600. There are base wiretap fees, monthly maintenance fees, per switch set-up fees, additional switch fees, uninterrupted continuation fees, call-bridging fees, "pinging" fees, extension fees, and fees for activity reports. Prosecutors can't challenge the fees in civil court because the wiretap orders are sealed by a criminal court.

90% of all wiretap requests now involve mobile phones, according to DoJ.

Since we run a system for filtering bottom-feeders out of search results, I've had to look at this issue.

One of the basic requirements of SiteTruth is that a web site that's selling or promoting something must have an identifiable name and address on the web site. A "contact us" form isn't good enough. Legitimate sites selling something usually have a valid name and address on the site. Commercial sites without business names and addresses are generally "bottom-feeders". They may or may not be fraudulent, but there's no way to tell, so we down-rate them and move them down in our search results. It's illegal in many jurisdictions to run a business without disclosing an address (California and EU law are quite explicit on this), and so that's a good first filter.

This filters out the bottom-feeders who aren't willing to go all the way to using a phony address. That's a felony (wire fraud or identity theft), so most sites with even a pretense of legitimacy don't go there. Those guys are crooks; no question about that. We have some blacklists to check for that sort of thing; it's usually phishing-related.

So there are three general categories - legitimate, bottom-feeder, and felony crook. The bottom-feeders are the ones Cutts is talking about. If they hadn't done some "search engine optimization", they wouldn't rank high enough in a search engine that anyone would see them. Some of the bottom-feeders are annoying, but not illegal; those are the ones that are page farms, but at least on-topic page farms. Then there are those who just have pages of irrelevant links and ads. Their natural habitat is celebrity name searches. Since they're probably violating false advertising laws, they are misdemeanor-level crooks.

When bottom-feeders go bad, it's usually via downloading hostile software as an "affiliate". See, for example, Zango. That's an ongoing problem, and McAfee's SiteAdvisor filters out those sites. Even Google is finally checking for most of the usual suspects there.

Amusingly, the bottom-feeders can't go legitimate and give a name and address without losing search engine positioning. If the same name and address shows up on a huge number of sites, Google picks that up and down-rates the sites for duplicate content. One large bottom-feeder actually has a link to a common "about" page on each of their several hundred thousand sites, but uses the "robots.txt" file to keep Google from finding it. Our SiteTruth system won't read the page in violation of the "robots.txt" file, so we downrate them for lacking a business address. They just can't win.

This is starting to look like the history of spam. In the early days of spam, as some may remember, it was viewed as a bottom-feeder marketing medium, and reasonably legitimate companies used it. The CAN-SPAM act was enacted in a form that pleased the Direct Marketing Association, but had an effect unexpected by both the DMA and anti-spam workers. The CAN-SPAM act allows spam, but only if the sender and subject are identified properly. So any "legitimate" spam is easily filtered out by spam filters. As a result, today, spam is entirely a criminal activity. We never hear about the DMA in spam discussions any more. Now it's about putting people in jail.

The same thing is happening on the web. As the filters get better, the marginal bottom-feeders don't get through, and only the out and out crooks are left. As with spam, in time we'll get rid of most of the bottom-feeders, leaving only the crooks. As the ambiguity goes away, the job of law enforcement becomes easier. That's happened with spam. There's a high-profile arrest every month or two now. Alan Ralsky just went down.

What's your source on that?!

So, no doubt some of those in other categories (like violent) have drug crimes TOO, but the crime they're serving serious time for is something else.

If you count someone who's been convicted for both murder (and sentenced to 20 years) and for marijuana possession (and sentenced to 18 months) as a "drug offense" in your above statistics, no wonder they seem inflated!

(Of course, they may just be flat-out wrong, too.)

Do you have a link for this? These prison stats say that only 20% of the sentenced inmates had a most serious offense that was drug related.

Microsoft had no monopoly in browsers when they started. Microsoft had a desktop OS monopoly. They leveraged that to kill a company whose product might, someday, indirectly have hurt their desktop OS profits. The specific leverage they applied was to sink massive resources into developing a high-quality browser, and ... not only give it away free, but threaten to hurt other companies dependent on them for making products that worked with Netscape. They lost money hand over fist on the effort.

The assertions above are not rhetoric. They're fact. Hunt up the words "malevolent" and "obsessive" in that link. When the Netscape threat was gone, Microsoft virtually abandoned browser development.

Apple had no monopoly on MP3 players or desktop OS's when they started. Apple used no leverage of any kind. They used high-quality industrial design and user-interface research, attention to detail, superb marketing and smart partnerships to earn their present spot on top of the market. They have not, ever, even once, stopped adding new capacity and features on to the iPod. The iPod has been phenomenally profitable since its introduction. Apple continued improving it at a torrid pace even when they had left the competition so far behind there essentially wasn't any, and they're still doing it today.

Here's the legal description of how Microsoft behaved:

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,

and what the law says of people who behave that way:

shall be deemed guilty of a felony,

and the prescribed penalties if the prosecutor decides to make it a criminal case (which he didn't):

and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

Note that a hundred million dollars is and was chump change to Microsoft. They had a hundred seventy two times that much available in *cash and short-term notes*.

In short, "to monopolize" trade is not "to have a monopoly on a product". Publishers have a monopoly on distribution of books they publish. That isn't the same as monopolizing trade in books.

Apple have a monopoly on Mac OS X. They are not monopolizing trade in personal-computer OS's. They have a monopoly on iPods. They aren't monopolizing trade in digital music.

They law applies equally to Microsoft and Apple.

It's just that Apple didn't break it.

Here are a few sources grabbed randomely
from Google.

These aren't checked thoroughly, but they do include two government sources, a respected newspaper, and some guy who wrote a book. Is it true? I don't know, but there does seem to be some belief that this can be an issue.

The unfortunate thing about the wikipedia angle is that there are far too many individuals who go in and edit or remove relevant info, calling it "linkspam" or making some kind of unfounded COI claim. Free Open-Source Software is what it is why it is. Moore's Law means that the cost of data storage is going down. The cost of managing? Not going down quite as much, especially as more people contribute, increasing the complexity factor. Managing a data warehouse is not the same as managing an actual physical warehouse of consumer goods when it comes to square feet!

Regardless whether storing or managing -- if the hosting and managing aspect is becoming too much to bear on donations alone, a funding mechanism for sustenance would eventually need to be obtained. The persons who are haughty about removing outside (offsite) links from wikipedia should realize that when the private sectors are required to compete with each other in the same ways that they are expected and required to compete with one another in the public sector, efficiency is usually obtained. Increases in usefulness and timeliness of information are also obtained. Time and energy of people is not wasted just because it can be via a dollar amount, as often happens with lengthy legal battles. And legal battles almost always involve the Principle-Agent Problem. >> nonexistant wikipedia link at this time.

Nope. This, however: 2005 DOJ Case is a somewhat related technical topic which could probably use some more discussion. Seems a bit obvious how the National Association of Realtors colludes to exploit people in many of the same ways Microsoft does! :)

Anyway. Some of the individuals removing information or links are not even originating from the correct language tree for the countries where they are. Check the "edit history" of various pages in the /en/wikipedia/ tree and notice how many edits are done by people from non-US IPs. It's not that there's anything wrong with sorting the disambiguation of acronyms, but it's a definite problem, for example, in search technology. Many seem to have a language barrier issue with understanding what exactly FOSS is about. English is one of the most technically accurate languages, imho; that's why the 'net started here. I've personally linked to a lot of information on wikipedia articles and have contributed in one manner or another to a lot of F/OSS projects, but having the project I'm managing removed and called "linkspam" when I'm not selling anything nor requesting any donations is just not cool.

Actually, if you read the article you will see that the violent crime rate is has been going down because they changed the way that they measure it.

Really, folks - which is a simpler explanation for these graphs:

Violent crime rate

Video game sales

That (presumeably violent) video game use correlates with a massive secret drive towards violence, that is somehow counterbalanced in the overall violent crime rate, or that this (now) extremely common form of entertainment is at worst, on average, a similar factor in people's lives as movies or books?

True, the ever-shifting and politically influenced definition of violent crime may have shifted definition over the years too, but I highly doubt any theories on that line would be able to mask the accusations Thomson makes about the use of video games in society.

In order to match Thomson's account to reality in any way, you'd have to start making up any number of wild inventions to force the facts into place... kind of like what he's doing here.

Ryan Fenton

You really need to stop playing amateur antitrust lawyer. Market power alone does not constitute an antitrust violation and prevent a manufacturer from making unilateral decisions concerning their business conduct.

"Second, a single firm that lawfully has acquired Stiglerian market power is permitted, without violating section 2 of the Sherman Act, to exercise that power by raising price and restraining its own output in that market. This follows from the argument, carefully set out by Donald Turner, that federal courts cannot take on the burden of detecting and remedying such price-setting behavior without becoming, in effect, public utility regulatory commissions." Thomas G. Krattenmaker (and others) mini biography

Similarly, your comments concerning the rule of reason approach adopted in Leegin Creative Leather Products are misleading at best. It is very difficult to make an antitrust case under the rule of reason analysis. In addition, it is well known that the rule distinguishes between restraints with anticompetitive effect that are harmful to the consumer and those with procompetitive effect that are in the consumer's best interest, but you're arguing that a maximum retail price policy is "anticompetitive." This simply isn't credible.

You should consider reading this case before continuing to opine as to what Nintendo can and cannot do.

In small words from: (http://www.campusdownloading.com/faq.htm)
If all I do is download music files, am I still breaking the law?
Yes, if the person or network you're downloading from doesn't have the copyright holder's permission.

Looking at the act:
"consists of the reproduction or distribution"
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red.htm

And if you feel like reproduction is an odd world it's also:
      1. The act of reproducing or the condition or process of being reproduced.

So if you make a copy onto your HDD without the right to do so your breaking the law in the US.

The FBI keeps arresting and convicting people in this country for ties to terrorist organizations. Now, how do you suppose domestic surveillance contributes to that? Did the idea cross your mind that those arrests and convictions, not to mention the other disrupted plots, are the reason we haven't had something like the Bali bombing, or the London tube bombing, or the Madrid bombing? Of course I'm sure that you also know that the Canadian bomb plotters had connections in the US, that the US helped the Germans foil a dangerous bomb plot, and British and American surveillance helped foil a major attack? There are plenty of other cases as well.... for anyone that cares to know.

On the Legality of the NSA Electronic Intercept Program

I'm glad it is a hoax, but it is sad that the state of the world is such that it is believable.

P.S. Reminds me of the "Student suspended for using PHP" bbSpot "story". Funny thing is, is that there really is a drug called PHP.

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html

It's the first one there. " 1-(1-Phenylcyclohexyl)pyrrolidine 7458 N PCPy, PHP, rolicyclidine", some kind of PCP analogue ironically enough.

Mind you, IANAL, and the DoJ apparently has better things to do than go after low-level copyright infringers, it seems like congress wants to change that to help Hollywood...

But the DoJ is also sensible enough only to care about huge pirate rings selling bootleg copies, not Joe Infringer downloading at home. Hollywood hates that, obviously, but the DoJ has real work to do and I hope they keep doing it.

Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.

First, statistics like these are marginally more helpful the anecdotal evidence.
Second, perhaps you should have clicked on the chart and gotten more current information?
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/4meastab.htm
That shows that crime rates are INCREASING since 2003

There are to many factors.
1) Maybe violent crime caused by long term exposer to video game has been increasing, but not enough to overtake other factor limiting crime?

2) Maybe the realism need to begin to cross the uncanny valley?

3) Maybe there is no long term effects.

4) that study goes to 2003. People are a lot more realistic in games now then they were before 2003.

I suggest you read up on fMRIs and the current understanding of the brain. It's mind blowing amazing.

I am not saying this study is proof of any long term effect of violence. I do want more and better studies done.

More statistic fun:
More people are being killed by unknown people.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/relationship.htm

Hmm, it seems the trend is changing:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm

According to that chart the homicide rate stopped dropping in about 2003.

It probably has more to to with economic factors and political factors.

Historically, crime rises when the economy isn't doing to well.

First, statistics like these are marginally more helpful the anecdotal evidence.
Second, perhaps you should have clicked on the chart and gotten more current information?
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/4meastab.htm
That shows that crime rates are INCREASING since 2003

There are to many factors.
1) Maybe violent crime caused by long term exposer to video game has been increasing, but not enough to overtake other factor limiting crime?

2) Maybe the realism need to begin to cross the uncanny valley?

3) Maybe there is no long term effects.

4) that study goes to 2003. People are a lot more realistic in games now then they were before 2003.

I suggest you read up on fMRIs and the current understanding of the brain. It's mind blowing amazing.

I am not saying this study is proof of any long term effect of violence. I do want more and better studies done.

More statistic fun:
More people are being killed by unknown people.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/relationship.htm

Hmm, it seems the trend is changing:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm

According to that chart the homicide rate stopped dropping in about 2003.

It probably has more to to with economic factors and political factors.

Historically, crime rises when the economy isn't doing to well.

First, statistics like these are marginally more helpful the anecdotal evidence.
Second, perhaps you should have clicked on the chart and gotten more current information?
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/4meastab.htm
That shows that crime rates are INCREASING since 2003

There are to many factors.
1) Maybe violent crime caused by long term exposer to video game has been increasing, but not enough to overtake other factor limiting crime?

2) Maybe the realism need to begin to cross the uncanny valley?

3) Maybe there is no long term effects.

4) that study goes to 2003. People are a lot more realistic in games now then they were before 2003.

I suggest you read up on fMRIs and the current understanding of the brain. It's mind blowing amazing.

I am not saying this study is proof of any long term effect of violence. I do want more and better studies done.

More statistic fun:
More people are being killed by unknown people.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/relationship.htm

Hmm, it seems the trend is changing:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm

According to that chart the homicide rate stopped dropping in about 2003.

It probably has more to to with economic factors and political factors.

Historically, crime rises when the economy isn't doing to well.

Not only are they wrong, they overlook a critical piece of information. Games have been becoming more and more realistic.
so when they look back and say "When I was a kid, nobody went crazy" it doesn't exactly apply to current games, Also anecdotal evidence is almost always wrong.

Even HSPD12 isn't that ridiculous. It states that it must be implemented consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552a, which if you read section (b), is completely incompatible with the NASA process being described.

IANAL, but it sounds like there weren't any smart lawyers behind this idea anyway.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm

It's not quite equivalent based on knives alone, but the statement that more Americans per capita kill each other with weapons that are not guns than British citizens kill each other in total would be true.

If we want to get worried about violence in society the blowback from the Bush era torture policy is going to be much worse. Just wait till we see a run of serial killers who were former CIA interrogation specialists.

Maybe the reaction from abroad, but certainly not internally. Even if the current era generates more serial killers than other eras, the number of people killed by serial killers is way out of proportion to the fear they generate (like terrorists). Many more murders are committed by people who know the victim than people who don't. The two biggest 'causes' in the US are the drug trade and domestic violence.

Yes. It's called meta-study.

However, while the stay will be lifted in order to enable the District Court to determine the License Issues, this Court will determine whether a constructive trust is appropriate because it is the very essence of a bankruptcy court's jurisdiction to decide what is property of the estate.

Dear DEA,

Please put down your handcuffs and assault rifles and step away from the college student with dreadlocks. Keeping marijuana in the same schedule as cocaine and heroin is a crime against those who will benefit from its effective use as medical treatment.

Love,
hoto0301

Not at all. If I argued that some societal factor increased the numbers of children on welfare, and no such increase actually exists in the world, then surely my conclusion must be false, correct?

If I argued that games decreased violent crime based on the fact that violent crime has decreased over the last ten years or so, I'd be falling into the trap you're accusing me of falling into...That decrease could have been caused by anything, and there is absolutely nothing to relate it to gaming.

However, for them to suggest quite blatantly that gamers are far more violent than non-gamers...That runs afoul of the fact that there is none of the increase in violent crime that must follow an increase in violent behaviour among one of the most violent demographics...Men aged 16 to 30. According to the DoJ, the percentage of violent crimes perpetrated by minors has dropped 61% in the period between 1993 and 2005.

How can that possibly correlate with what they're describing as a near universal phenomenon? There are a lot of gamers out there, far too many for there not to be a significant upswing if games really fed the violent tendencies as this research claims they do.

Either way it's all about Correlation != Causation.

My argument against games making people more violent would be more historical. Lot's of things have, historically, been said to make people more violent, and this tends not to bear out in the real world. Marijuana was once thought to induce psychosis and violent behavior, and while we may or may not agree on whether or not marijuana ought to be legal, most people do acknowledge that it doesn't exactly make you violent. The same arguments were applied to movies, rock music, sports events, and comic books...Anything that might make the kids into ravening monsters. It just tends not to happen.

On top of that, there has been no increase in violence since the advent of truly violent gaming. It's pretty widespread now, so you'd think that any actual upswing in violence would stand out against the preceding decades, but there isn't anything like that in the data.

Per Federal Law, Piggybacking IS legal
US law clearly states that accessing unencrypted wireless is legal.
But first, I want to address a lie that was started by Alex Leary, a reporter for the St Petersburg Times. I have been following this story since it appeared. A "Benjamin Smith" was never arrested by the St. Petersburg Police for unauthorized access to a computer network, never charged with a third-degree felony, never booked by the Pinellas County Sherff's Office, and never scheduled for a pretrial hearing. There was no follow up to the story because there was no trial. Alex Leary made the whole story up.
Do not spread urban legends. Especially about the law. When you are told that something is against the law, ask which specific law? When you are told someone was arrested, ask for the booking number? Went to trial, docket number. When someone cannot answer these questions, do not believe them.
Accessing unencrypted wireless is VERY legal.
According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal
procedure) of the United States Code, Part I
(Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic
communications interception and interception of oral
communications) from
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm :
2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this
chapter
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm
or Chapter 121
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ECPA2701_2712.htm
of this title for any person --
(i) to intercept or access an electronic
communication made through an electronic
communication system that is configured so that such
electronic communication is readily accessible to
the general public;
2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public"
means, with respect to a radio communication, that
such communication is not --
(A) scrambled or encrypted ;
(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose
essential parameters have been withheld from the
public with the intention of preserving the privacy
of such communication;
(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal
subsidiary to a radio transmission;
(D) transmitted over a communication system provided
by a common carrier, unless the communication is a
tone only paging system communication; or
(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part
25
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr25_04.html,
subpart D
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.401.htm ,
E
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.501.htm ,
or F
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.600.htm
of part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr74_04.html ,
or part 94 http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html of the
Rules of the Federal Communications Commission
http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html , unless, in the
case of a communication transmitted on a frequency
allocated under part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr74_04.html
that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast
auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way
voice communication by radio; [The unlicensed
spectrum used by Wi-Fi
http:

Per Federal Law, Piggybacking IS legal
US law clearly states that accessing unencrypted wireless is legal.
But first, I want to address a lie that was started by Alex Leary, a reporter for the St Petersburg Times. I have been following this story since it appeared. A "Benjamin Smith" was never arrested by the St. Petersburg Police for unauthorized access to a computer network, never charged with a third-degree felony, never booked by the Pinellas County Sherff's Office, and never scheduled for a pretrial hearing. There was no follow up to the story because there was no trial. Alex Leary made the whole story up.
Do not spread urban legends. Especially about the law. When you are told that something is against the law, ask which specific law? When you are told someone was arrested, ask for the booking number? Went to trial, docket number. When someone cannot answer these questions, do not believe them.
Accessing unencrypted wireless is VERY legal.
According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal
procedure) of the United States Code, Part I
(Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic
communications interception and interception of oral
communications) from
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm :
2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this
chapter
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm
or Chapter 121
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ECPA2701_2712.htm
of this title for any person --
(i) to intercept or access an electronic
communication made through an electronic
communication system that is configured so that such
electronic communication is readily accessible to
the general public;
2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public"
means, with respect to a radio communication, that
such communication is not --
(A) scrambled or encrypted ;
(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose
essential parameters have been withheld from the
public with the intention of preserving the privacy
of such communication;
(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal
subsidiary to a radio transmission;
(D) transmitted over a communication system provided
by a common carrier, unless the communication is a
tone only paging system communication; or
(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part
25
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr25_04.html,
subpart D
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.401.htm ,
E
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.501.htm ,
or F
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.600.htm
of part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr74_04.html ,
or part 94 http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html of the
Rules of the Federal Communications Commission
http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html , unless, in the
case of a communication transmitted on a frequency
allocated under part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr74_04.html
that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast
auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way
voice communication by radio; [The unlicensed
spectrum used by Wi-Fi
http:

Per Federal Law, Piggybacking IS legal
US law clearly states that accessing unencrypted wireless is legal.
But first, I want to address a lie that was started by Alex Leary, a reporter for the St Petersburg Times. I have been following this story since it appeared. A "Benjamin Smith" was never arrested by the St. Petersburg Police for unauthorized access to a computer network, never charged with a third-degree felony, never booked by the Pinellas County Sherff's Office, and never scheduled for a pretrial hearing. There was no follow up to the story because there was no trial. Alex Leary made the whole story up.
Do not spread urban legends. Especially about the law. When you are told that something is against the law, ask which specific law? When you are told someone was arrested, ask for the booking number? Went to trial, docket number. When someone cannot answer these questions, do not believe them.
Accessing unencrypted wireless is VERY legal.
According to Title 18 (Crimes and criminal
procedure) of the United States Code, Part I
(Crimes), Chapter 119 (Wire and electronic
communications interception and interception of oral
communications) from
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm :
2511. (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this
chapter
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/wiretap2510_2522.htm
or Chapter 121
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ECPA2701_2712.htm
of this title for any person --
(i) to intercept or access an electronic
communication made through an electronic
communication system that is configured so that such
electronic communication is readily accessible to
the general public;
2510. Definitions
(16) "readily accessible to the general public"
means, with respect to a radio communication, that
such communication is not --
(A) scrambled or encrypted ;
(B) transmitted using modulation techniques whose
essential parameters have been withheld from the
public with the intention of preserving the privacy
of such communication;
(C) carried on a subcarrier or other signal
subsidiary to a radio transmission;
(D) transmitted over a communication system provided
by a common carrier, unless the communication is a
tone only paging system communication; or
(E) transmitted on frequencies allocated under part
25
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr25_04.html,
subpart D
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.401.htm ,
E
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.501.htm ,
or F
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr74.600.htm
of part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr74_04.html ,
or part 94 http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html of the
Rules of the Federal Communications Commission
http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html , unless, in the
case of a communication transmitted on a frequency
allocated under part 74
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cfr74_04.html
that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast
auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way
voice communication by radio; [The unlicensed
spectrum used by Wi-Fi
http:

Why is this even a story? Oh, because it's Microsoft trying to outcompete a Linux supplier, therefore, it's intrinsically evil.
Evil, NO. Unethical, YES. No one likes a cheater.

What is your definition of competition? A kickback or bribe includes any item intended to improperly obtain favorable treatment. Why didn't Microsoft just lower the per unit license cost to match Mandrakes? Are you saying that on a level playing field, Windows looses to Linux?

From the article:
Mba-Uzoukwu wrote that Microsoft is still negotiating an agreement that would give TSC US$400,000 (£190,323) for marketing activities around the Classmate PCs when those computers are converted to Windows.

Where have I heard this before? Oh Yeah, the anti-trust hearing:

In addition, Plaintiffs are concerned that there is some confusion among OEMs relating to the application of certain portions of the MDA to OEM advertisements for computers containing non-Microsoft operating systems. Pursuant to the MDA, Microsoft provides marketing funds -- in the form of discounts on the price the OEM pays for each copy of Windows -- to OEMs whose print advertisements and websites promote Microsoft's operating systems in a manner specified by Microsoft.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f205700/205751.htm

Enjoy,

TFA and the post author confuse the issue by saying that these guys are getting punished for the end result (changing their grades), rather than the method (hacking an admin account, using that access to hack other accounts, stealing privileged information, AND taking cash to change someone's grades).

Imagine some jerkwad walked into a 7-11, got a Slurpee, tried to walk out without paying for it, then shot the clerk when the clerk confronted him. Then imagine the Slashdot article saying "this guy could get the death penalty just for stealing a Slurpee."

That's an extreme example, but it gets my message across. They're being prosecuted not only for what they did, but how they did it.

Also, if you read the original press release from the DOJ, it states: "The charged counts carry a maximum punishment of 20 years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine. However, the actual sentence will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables, and any applicable statutory sentencing factors."

So even the Feds, while stating the maximum possible sentence (probably for the deterrence value), are admitting that the actual sentence depends on a lot of factors and probably won't be the maximum. Although giving these guys double-dimes in the pen would send a message.

Why don't the Mandriva people write a complaint to the US government accusing Microsoft of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act? Historically, before the current administration and when the executive branch even sometimes believed in rule of law, the US DoJ has not been kind to US companies and their officers who have succeeded in foreign countries by corrupt means.

Want to see Steve Ballmer, or more likely some scapegoat underling, in federal prison? Now's your chance. Get some resources together to investigate how this happened, pin it on them, and land their ass in jail.

I'm sure you honestly believe that, and I know why you do. People are paid money to influence opinion until the point when you can't recognize the truth when its right in front of your eyes.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/corrtyp.htm

After all, it's kind of hare to commit a second murder while in jail.

You've never watched Oz have you? ;)

More seriously, here's an interesting fact : "During 2002, there was a higher homicide rate among the U.S. resident population (6 per 100,000) than either in state prisons (4 per 100,000) or in local jails (3 per 100,000)." (source). So while there are less murders in jail than there is in society, it still happens (but it also shows how grossly exagerated it is in shows dealing with life in prison), so you're right.

Of course I find it after posting. It was apparently Miniscribe.

From one source:
The most famous plan they came up with, by far, was executed in late 1987, and was very simple: Buy a load of bricks, pack them into boxes, then ship them to a fake customer's warehouse and report them as actual sales to cover the shortfall. The company's reputation was tarnished quite a bit once the deception was unveiled in early 1989; shareholders revolted and sued the company, and combined with the industry-wide slump in disk drive sales in the late 1980s, MiniScribe's health never fully recovered.

The case even made it to the supreme court:
http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1996/w961430w.txt

Here's a link. And where does HR 1955 reference this? Nowhere does it contain the exact text "hate crime" or "245". There may well be some conceptual link, but I'm not going to spend my own copious free time hunting it down.

In the past 100 years, the TOTAL number of Americans who died from terrorist attacks is less than 5000. Given the current mentality, why is the same administration so lax on gun laws? After all, in 2001, there were 7,900 (Dept. of Justice numbers) murders where a handgun was the murder weapon. You'd think that there would be some serious restrictions on those things, given that I can't even take a nail clipper on an airplane. Or, if you're really serious, how about doing something about traffic fatalities involving alcohol - we had 17,448 of those in 2001. It would probably be more effective to make sure that every car in America wouldn't start without the driver passing a breathalyzer test. Sounds draconian, but comparing the tiny number of terrorist attacks that have happened in the past 2 decades compared the the hundreds of thousands of people who have been killed by handguns and alcohol related accidents in the same time perios, it sounds rather reasonable if you are under the "let's lock down society" mentality.

It doesn't matter if file sharing and p2p are against TOS, packet forgery is basically illegal, see here.

*cough* http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/1030_new.html

Texas has some of the loosest gun control laws in the country, according to the Brady Campaign. It also has the 10th highest violent crime rate, according to the DOJ.

Personally, I'm not a fan of gun control laws. As is says on the ABC News site, "The government wants to say regulations and laws like the Brady Gun Control Law are making a difference, but they aren't." Gun control opponents need to acknowledge that that statement works in both directions. Just because gun control laws don't help deter crime doesn't mean they encourage it. Statistics imply the laws have no effect in either direction.

Please, stick to the facts.