I don't get the big deal. The PS2 having a dvd player was a big deal when dvd was new. Nowadays, you can and probably already have gotten a dvd player for about the price of a dvd. There's just no point in shoving one into a game console that doesn't need DVD already.
I've had some of the same thoughts. If you read enough scifi, you see the topic pop up. But not nearly as much as you'd think. I would imagine taking all the risk/consequences out of sex (other than the emotional ones) would be the biggest change in our species since fire. Look how much the pill changed things, and "all" that did was allow women not to get pregnant.
Birth control is generally a factor in a long term relationship. After you have been going out for a long while, move in together, etc., it's common to move from condoms to the pill. It makes things simpler and more spontaneous for both partners, so it's not just a guy thing. It's not always so much a "trap" thing, but some % of women will always make the decision to have children on their own. And when you have millions of people going at it, that percentage means you're not just talking about one or two but thousands.
Personally, I'd welcome the male pill/patch because many women are understandably opposed to taking the female pill. However, it's not going to be quite that easy. I think it's going to take a LOT of trust (or maybe stupidity) for a woman to trust that the man was competent/trustworthy to take his BC. Considering that the physical effects fall solely on the woman, this will always be a big issue.
It's not just about trusting yourself, but about trusting the other person who may also be buying, using the lubricant. Once again, you lose control over the situation, but you still get the "responsiblity" by law.
The man can verify that he is wearing a condom. The woman can verify that the man is wearing a condom. The man cannot verify that the woman is taking birth control pills.
Are you begging to see the unequal options and control?
I think this scenario leaps to mind because it's a real fear. It's actually following your point about men being equally "responsible." Right now men are equally responsible under the law, but they do not have equal options or control of the birth control.
Women just aren't interested in sex like they used to be.
Maybe it's just that as opposed to the 60s, 70s and 80s, they aren't baked out of their gourds and unaware of the rampant STDs they'll be exposed to, many of which can later make them sterile or, worse, give them cancer.
I'm going to ignore the rest of your sniping and come to the heart of the matter - do you have any actual cites that say locksmiths are liable in these cases? I did some searching and I found again and again that it was simply professional ethics. If you're going to keep making this claim, please back it up with some actual facts.
And what would you say was the intent of the boarding pass website? I would say it's fairly simple: to show the people that the government is sweeping an obvious security concern under the rug. Much like Schumer's HOWTO wasn't about trying to help people make fake boarding passes, it was about trying to get better security.
First you have to define aiding and abetting, and that ain't exactly a cut and dried issue. For example, if I loan a friend my car, I am not a principal to him using it to run over the ambassador to Sweden. Likewise, you first have to show that his site actually significantly aided anyone in committing said crime. As you said, it comes dow to how he is "aiding" these people. Considering the incredibly low hurdle of forging boarding passes, I do not thing he can be considered as significantly aiding. Anyone with a scanner, a printer, and Microsoft Paint could do this. The fact that this kind of thing is so dirt simple is proof enough that no one needs any help.
Second, back to the issue of aiding and abetting someone to commit the crime. Who was the person who committed the crime? Without that person, 18 USC 2 is irrelevant anyway.
Third, I think both Soghoian and Schumer would fall under free speech. Both were trying to speak out about the holes in the security. Both Schumers HOWTO and Soghoian's demonstration site could reasonably fall under that kind of speech.
hugzz says: It's illegal to make keys in your little fantasy world?
Reality Master 101 replies: As a matter of fact, it is. Lockpicks are generally regulated and illegal in unlicensed hands, though this can vary between jurisdictions.
Do you have a reading impediment? Or are you literally talking about how things are in your fantasy world and not the real one?
First off, the parent post never said "licensed", "bonded" or any of that. He just said people you would be in trouble for starting a factory to create keys for criminals to break in. This is untrue, as a locksmith shop is a factory for creating keys, whether they be used by criminals or non-criminals. Likewise, you could say the factory that actually made the key-making machine is a factory to create keys for criminals to break in.
Second, do you have a cite for your claim: if you sell keys to anyone but the legal owner of the lock - you have comitted a criminal act? I mean, how are they to know? Keys don't come with certificates of authenticity that can be cross-checked against your ID (yet, thank god). Or does this only apply to someone who goes to a locksmith and says "I am a criminal, and I am not the legal owner of this lock but I need a copy of this key in order to break into a house"? And before you go bringing up keys that have "do not copy" stamped on them - I've done some searches and as near as I can tell it's not about it being illegal. There may be a state it is illegal in, but as near as I can tell it's often just professional ethics. If you can find an actual legal citation to back up your claim that it's illegal to copy these keys, please feel free to post it.
Right, but he didn't actually forge a boarding pass. Or at least, he doesn't seem to be charged with that. And if someone else used his site to forge a boarding pass, wouldn't it be that person who broke the law?
Did you actually read Charles Schumers Board Pass Forging HOWTO? I really don't see how this is fundamentally different. I don't see how "No person may make, or cause to be made, any of the following" distinguishes between the two.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get the big deal. The PS2 having a dvd player was a big deal when dvd was new. Nowadays, you can and probably already have gotten a dvd player for about the price of a dvd. There's just no point in shoving one into a game console that doesn't need DVD already.
Even better: http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen+square+ protests&nojs=1
I've had some of the same thoughts. If you read enough scifi, you see the topic pop up. But not nearly as much as you'd think. I would imagine taking all the risk/consequences out of sex (other than the emotional ones) would be the biggest change in our species since fire. Look how much the pill changed things, and "all" that did was allow women not to get pregnant.
Birth control is generally a factor in a long term relationship. After you have been going out for a long while, move in together, etc., it's common to move from condoms to the pill. It makes things simpler and more spontaneous for both partners, so it's not just a guy thing. It's not always so much a "trap" thing, but some % of women will always make the decision to have children on their own. And when you have millions of people going at it, that percentage means you're not just talking about one or two but thousands.
Personally, I'd welcome the male pill/patch because many women are understandably opposed to taking the female pill. However, it's not going to be quite that easy. I think it's going to take a LOT of trust (or maybe stupidity) for a woman to trust that the man was competent/trustworthy to take his BC. Considering that the physical effects fall solely on the woman, this will always be a big issue.
It's not just about trusting yourself, but about trusting the other person who may also be buying, using the lubricant. Once again, you lose control over the situation, but you still get the "responsiblity" by law.
Exactly my thoughts. Unfortunately, most of them are "single-throw" models...
s/begging/beginning/
The man can verify that he is wearing a condom. The woman can verify that the man is wearing a condom. The man cannot verify that the woman is taking birth control pills.
Are you begging to see the unequal options and control?
I'm no prude, but if they're not going to use their head, they shouldn't be fucking.
Good luck arguing your way out of millions of years of evolution.
Rainbow if you are gay.
Errrr....
I have as much chance of having kids as Bush does of thinking logically.
;)
That's not a very nice opinion of women.
I think this scenario leaps to mind because it's a real fear. It's actually following your point about men being equally "responsible." Right now men are equally responsible under the law, but they do not have equal options or control of the birth control.
Women just aren't interested in sex like they used to be.
Maybe it's just that as opposed to the 60s, 70s and 80s, they aren't baked out of their gourds and unaware of the rampant STDs they'll be exposed to, many of which can later make them sterile or, worse, give them cancer.
Or maybe it's just me.
Hot Coffee = male/female sex
Hot Tea = male/male kissing
Oh, the brits aren't going to like this one...
I'm going to ignore the rest of your sniping and come to the heart of the matter - do you have any actual cites that say locksmiths are liable in these cases? I did some searching and I found again and again that it was simply professional ethics. If you're going to keep making this claim, please back it up with some actual facts.
A sample size of one is a bit small to be drawing these conclusions. Might as well conclude that your kids are thin because you have brown hair.
And what would you say was the intent of the boarding pass website? I would say it's fairly simple: to show the people that the government is sweeping an obvious security concern under the rug. Much like Schumer's HOWTO wasn't about trying to help people make fake boarding passes, it was about trying to get better security.
Few enough characters for you?
Unfortunately, the Lock_picking article was subsequently blown up by retarted terrorists.
Luckily, there was a failsafe copy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockpicking/. Visit it now or the restarted terrorists win.
s/low/law/
First you have to define aiding and abetting, and that ain't exactly a cut and dried issue. For example, if I loan a friend my car, I am not a principal to him using it to run over the ambassador to Sweden. Likewise, you first have to show that his site actually significantly aided anyone in committing said crime. As you said, it comes dow to how he is "aiding" these people. Considering the incredibly low hurdle of forging boarding passes, I do not thing he can be considered as significantly aiding. Anyone with a scanner, a printer, and Microsoft Paint could do this. The fact that this kind of thing is so dirt simple is proof enough that no one needs any help.
Second, back to the issue of aiding and abetting someone to commit the crime. Who was the person who committed the crime? Without that person, 18 USC 2 is irrelevant anyway.
Third, I think both Soghoian and Schumer would fall under free speech. Both were trying to speak out about the holes in the security. Both Schumers HOWTO and Soghoian's demonstration site could reasonably fall under that kind of speech.
I would also like to see your cites. You made the claim that there's a low, lets see it.
hugzz says:
It's illegal to make keys in your little fantasy world?
Reality Master 101 replies:
As a matter of fact, it is. Lockpicks are generally regulated and illegal in unlicensed hands, though this can vary between jurisdictions.
Do you have a reading impediment? Or are you literally talking about how things are in your fantasy world and not the real one?
First off, the parent post never said "licensed", "bonded" or any of that. He just said people you would be in trouble for starting a factory to create keys for criminals to break in. This is untrue, as a locksmith shop is a factory for creating keys, whether they be used by criminals or non-criminals. Likewise, you could say the factory that actually made the key-making machine is a factory to create keys for criminals to break in.
Second, do you have a cite for your claim: if you sell keys to anyone but the legal owner of the lock - you have comitted a criminal act? I mean, how are they to know? Keys don't come with certificates of authenticity that can be cross-checked against your ID (yet, thank god). Or does this only apply to someone who goes to a locksmith and says "I am a criminal, and I am not the legal owner of this lock but I need a copy of this key in order to break into a house"? And before you go bringing up keys that have "do not copy" stamped on them - I've done some searches and as near as I can tell it's not about it being illegal. There may be a state it is illegal in, but as near as I can tell it's often just professional ethics. If you can find an actual legal citation to back up your claim that it's illegal to copy these keys, please feel free to post it.
Right, but he didn't actually forge a boarding pass. Or at least, he doesn't seem to be charged with that. And if someone else used his site to forge a boarding pass, wouldn't it be that person who broke the law?
Did you actually read Charles Schumers Board Pass Forging HOWTO? I really don't see how this is fundamentally different. I don't see how "No person may make, or cause to be made, any of the following" distinguishes between the two.
You wanna rethink that analogy there, "Reality Master"? Cause I'm pretty sure they call those places "locksmiths."