There are two kinds of people who tape things. The kind who, duh, want to watch it later, which I hope no one even vaguely objects to at this time.
And the people who keep a copy of every show. And you know what you call those people? Fans. They're the people who promote the show to others, they're the people who buy the DVDs, they account for a hell of a lot of revenue.
Why, because you're a moron who doesn't know what terrorism is?
A single murder can be terrorism, like the DC sniper would have been had he issued any political demands. (As he didn't, he was just a normal serial killer.)
Meanwhile, a serial killer can run through fifty people and not be a terrorist.
Terrorism is not any specific sort of crime. It is causing and using the fear of death (or, arguably, other harms, resulting in concepts like 'economic terrorist') among civilians for political purposes. It is not, per se, the death itself, although usually terrorists have to actually kill some people or no one will believe them.
But normal airplane hijackings (Aka, fly me to Cuba) were not for the purpose of making people fear for their lives. They were, duh, to get to Cuba. They are no more terrorism than carjackings are, or a normal kidnapping is.
Yeah, just assert that profiling is a good idea, and completely ignore what I said about how it can't possibly be one if the terrorists are the slightest bit intelligent.
The reason Isreali profiling works is they know who their enemies are...all Palestinians, and most Muslims. Israel is much less mixed society than ours.
We have, gasp, black Muslims! We have Muslims with Jewish names. We have Muslims we don't know are Muslims, which is the kind of thing that happens outside a theocracy like Israel's.
We have 'known' Arabs and Muslims, even ones who disagree with the government, who are not terrorists, and we have terrorists we don't know have any issues with the government at all, and don't know they are Muslims.
We have, and this is possibly the most important thing, other kinds of terrorists.
Israel security works because of clear enemies, it works because their society has a lot more security restrictions to start with (especially for Palestinians), it works because they know they can't hijack a plane because the cockpit is locked and there are armed people on the plane.
It doesn't work because of 'screening', screening just keeps the optimistic idiots out.
And again for some reason 'hijackings' have been conflated with what we're fighting, terrorism, to make statistics look better. A simple airplane hijacking is not terrorism. Destroying an airplane, either with or without hijacking it first, is (almost always) terrorism.
Wait a minute. When did we start worrying about hijackers?
We don't give a flying fuck if someone hijacks a plane and lands it in Cuba or wherever. Everyone gets off and lives happily ever after.
We care about terrorists hijacking planes to use as weapons, or to just blow up or crash. The hijacking isn't a problem, the problem is 'kill everyone on the plane and some people on the ground'. Otherwise we're care about hijacking about as much as we care about carjacking.
And while 'terrorists who have done that with planes' is, at the moment, mostly Arabic, it's idiotic to assume that's some sort of rule, because a good half the terrorist attacks on the US have been made by radical Christians or eco-nuts.
Sure, you could go to all the trouble of making weapons that disassemble, but you hardly need to do that when they're allowing fucking laptops on the plane. Look at one of those slim-ass Mac laptops, then look at a big bulky cheap PC one, and realize that the parts take up the same amount of space, and the big one just has a bunch of empty space in it.
Empty space surrounded by weird metal shapes. Gee, could you hide metal things in there? Could you remove parts and hide big things, like guns?
Yes, sometimes they make you turn it on, but that just means you need to be clever and remove the CD tray, hard drive (Boot a USB Linux distro.), and replace the battery with something that will run two minutes.
And there's no way they can keep razor blades off a plane if they allow anything made of metal and plastic, which is like 50% of the stuff we carry around. They can go next to your AA batteries, they can go behind metal slides of floppies, they can go inside your cell phone, they can go anywhere.
Ha! That's exactly what I almost posted a few minutes ago. Except I had one under every seat.
And some people should randomly secretly get two or three, so it's impossible to force people to disarm...someone could still have a knife. Hide them all over the plane, too.
Or, if you want to be more plausible, how about a taser? Everyone gets a taser! With a thirty second recharge!
Completely impossible to take over a plane with. Trivial to use against someone taking over a plane.
The cockpit wouldn't depressurize when the cabin did. Cockpit doors are always closed when they don't need to be open.
And while some passengers don't get their masks on in time, others will help them. You pass out in 30-60 seconds, you don't die. That come a few minutes later.
Guns have almost nothing to do with the rate of violent crime in the US.
The absurd income disparity and the setup that has armed gangs of people roaming the inner-city streets living off the drug purchases and prostitution rental of the suburbs is what is blame for the violent crime rate in America.
And rereading that, it sounded like I was talking to the parent poster with 'you'...I wasn't, I was talking to the American people who buy all this crap.
Profiling isn't a bad idea because it discriminates. It's a bad idea because it's a fucking stupid security idea, and anyone who spends two seconds thinking about it knows why.
If you look at 'suspicious' people more, that means you look at others less. (Don't even try to argue that.) So all terrorists have to do is fly a lot and they'll find out who the government thinks is suspicious. (Plus, they'll get 'frequent fliers' quick security scans!)
Which will give terrorists the completely obvious idea that, hey, maybe we should have the non-suspicious guy carry the weapons and pass them out on the plane! And could also lead to terrorists locating information leaks and closing them. (Who knows me and you and you, but not that guy?)
And before you think searching a kid is stupid...terrorists have kids, too. Even more pointedly, terrorists can kidnap kids, or befriend them. Hell, if you can abduct a kid from a public place, you can certainly get one to carry a bag for you onto the plane. (I have a coach ticket, so do not get to carry bags onto the plane. If you will carry this bag for me onto the plane, you can read the comic book in the side pocket, but you have to give it back when we land.)
Profiling only makes sense if you assume that terrorists first board a plane the day they want to blow it up, or somehow we can scan them much more without them noticing, or they are complete retards.
There's some quote about 'always fighting the last war' I can't recall.
But all this trying to stop weapons from getting on a plane is absurd, because humans have been making weapons out of things for 100,000 years. Like rocks, and sticks, and CDs, and, oh yeah, our hands.
I could get on an airplane and find something I could threaten someone else's life with with no prior planning. With prior planning, I could trivially take hostages.
And without any work on my part, I'd find myself and my hostage laying on the floor dead if I tried it on an airplane.
What we're getting now is what you call 'faith-based security' instead of 'reality-based security'. You just want to believe things are more secure because of what is happening, but there are exactly as secure as they've always been.
You want reality-based security? Well, there are places, called 'gas stations', that operate in high crime areas. Do they check people for weapons? Do they ban dangerous looking things? Hell no. They just put up damn bulletproof glass. Um, duh.
Maybe. More likely the prosecution was just stupid enough to believe that him/herself.
I don't know exactly what your point is. The prosecution being stupid is not a valid reason to allow prejudical evidence to be introduced.
You and I have absolutely no idea whether or not he used it in relation to the crime. He might have, he might not have.
He did not. Remember that 'innocent until proven guilty' thing? Well, it works on all levels. Until the state proves that he used PGP to encrypt pictures, he didn't. As they didn't even suggest that, we must assume he didn't.
And, BTW, we do know he didn't use PGP, or there would have been other computer evidence introduced. Like wiped areas of the hard drive, or encrypted files.
Geez, first you say there's no evidence of any pictures, then you admit that there is.
And this is arguing semantics, which I should expect from you. There is no evidence that pictures were taken. Testimony is not, in fact, 'evidence', and you have proven me utterly wrong and thus you 'win' the argument because I used that word to describe testimony. Congratulation.
In the real world, however, I'm not 'fighting' you and I was correct. There's no evidence there were any pictures, just some testimony. There's no evidence or testimony that these hypothetical pictures were on a computer. There's no evidence or testimony that PGP or even the computer was used in relation to this crime at all.
Of course not, we should let him go free because some prosecution lawyer told the jury that he owns PGP.
No one's even vaguely suggesting he go free. People are saying was a mistrial because the state introduce irrelevant and prejudical evidence implying something that wasn't true. A mistrial, of course, results in another trial.
I just bought an old Logitech iTouch or something wireless keyboard and mouse online for 11 dollars, which is exactly 1 dollar more expensive than my wired PS/2 keyboard cost at Walmart. Granted, the mouse is mechanical, but has a wheel, and the keyboard 'only' has 3 of the extra buttons I never use instead of fifteen, but it's perfect for watching movies in bed.
People who think wireless keyboard cost too much are fools...of course the newest ones do. The older ones cost about 5 dollars extra than older wired keyboards.
And for all you people whining about batteries...I have perfectly normal keyboard and optical mouse sitting at my computer. My wireless keyboard and mouse are for when I'm not at the computer. The batteries should last almost forever, considering I press like ten keystrokes a day.
However, everyone should just bite the bullet and buy a damn battery charger and a bunch of rechargable batteries. Do it once, and never buy batteries again. I haven't purchased batteries in 6 years, and my investment was under 50 bucks. (And the price of chargers has gone down big time, and they're much nicer. I'm thinking of getting a new one, but can't justify it while mine works.)
Of course, nowadays everything seems to come with batteries, so I'm not actually using half my rechargables, they're in storage waiting for the freebies to die.
Re:So, you programmers ready to give up your jobs?
on
McVoy Strikes Back
·
· Score: 1
Yeah.
Me, I'm just wondering when it became my business to worry about which products had a viable business model.
I just laugh every time someone says 'No one makes money selling OSS'. What the fuck do I care? Is it my job to make sure that everyone is in a productive business before I use the results of that business?
Clearly someone finds it useful to produce that stuff, or they wouldn't do it! If they find it unprofitable, they're free to stop making it, duh.
Then I go and use it because it's the best tool, period, 75% of the time, and the best tool for the price another 20% of the time, and the last 5% of the time I at least know I won't end up in an MS technology deadend.
I, in turn, find it useful to get my modifications back, because then they'll be included next time I update.
Arguing that people won't produce OSS because it doesn't make them any money seems rather akin to taking a position that no one will donate blood because it doesn't make them money.
Well...they are doing that. You can't stand there and argue they won't, it's completely idiotic when they clearly are.
As far as I can tell, there's no evidence of any pictures at all, much less ones in his computer. No evidence was introducing WRT to his computer except that it had PGP on it. They didn't even assert he'd had files and wiped them.
The evidence is that a girl testified he'd taken pictures of her. There's no computer involved at all.
I have to agree with this guy's lawyer. The only reason PGP was introduced was to create uncertainity in the minds of the jury that there might have been encrypted files transfered via that computer, when there was absolutely no evidence of that at all, or that it was in any way involved in the crime.
It's completely absurd to introduce something as evidence and say 'He did this in advance so his crime would be easier to hide' when he did not, in fact, use that in relation to the crime at all!
I agree with what someone said. This is like saying your purchases of lime indicate that your murder of someone was premeditated, despite the fact the body was found without any lime on it.
Or introducing evidence that someone owes a gun in a relation to an assault charge where no gun was present. It's just a blatant attempt to prejuidice the jury.
Oh, but I forgot, he's an evil child molestor, so obviously we should just make up crap so he gets a longer sentence.
Attempting to thwart the police in bringing you to justice is not illegal.
Lying to the police can be illegal. Tampering with stuff that has been declared evidence or a crime scene is illegal. Helping someone else thwart the police makes you an accessory after the fact.
Even just plain screwing around with an investigation underway can be illegal. If someone gets killed and you start laying blood-soaked rags around to confuse the police, even outside the crime scene, you can, and probably will, be charged with interfering with a police investigation.
But hiding a crime you committed from the police is part of the crime. (Hence how helping someone with that makes them an accessory.)
And as such, they cannot charge people for it, anymore than they can charge someone who's speeding at 75 miles an hour for speeding at 74, 73, 72, etc miles an hour as they slowed down.
In fact, if they charged you with interfering with an investigation, they'd probably have to drop the charges if you actually committed the crime.
If you're carrying the body around, yes, in theory. If they know you have it, you have to turn it over.
But they'd have to prove you had it before they could hold you in contempt, and, duh, if they could prove you had it they'd just take it!
But if you want an example: Let's say the police suspect you of murder. But you break and steal the body before they can do an autopsy, and hide it.
The police arrest you for that, and you are found guilty of taking it. At that point, yes, they can order you to hand over the body, and charge you with contempt if you fail to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't have to break the DMCA, the FCC made rules that made it illegal to build a receiver that did not honor it.
There are two kinds of people who tape things. The kind who, duh, want to watch it later, which I hope no one even vaguely objects to at this time.
And the people who keep a copy of every show. And you know what you call those people? Fans. They're the people who promote the show to others, they're the people who buy the DVDs, they account for a hell of a lot of revenue.
More importantly, it's my goddamn spectrum they're broadcasting for free on, so they can shut the fuck up.
A single murder can be terrorism, like the DC sniper would have been had he issued any political demands. (As he didn't, he was just a normal serial killer.)
Meanwhile, a serial killer can run through fifty people and not be a terrorist.
Terrorism is not any specific sort of crime. It is causing and using the fear of death (or, arguably, other harms, resulting in concepts like 'economic terrorist') among civilians for political purposes. It is not, per se, the death itself, although usually terrorists have to actually kill some people or no one will believe them.
But normal airplane hijackings (Aka, fly me to Cuba) were not for the purpose of making people fear for their lives. They were, duh, to get to Cuba. They are no more terrorism than carjackings are, or a normal kidnapping is.
A brig. Aka, a small room we can lock people in.
Useful for dealing with drunk hooligans, and a place to put captured terrorists before the passengers kill them.
Women logically would already be required to wear those if people could see through their clothing.
The reason Isreali profiling works is they know who their enemies are...all Palestinians, and most Muslims. Israel is much less mixed society than ours.
We have, gasp, black Muslims! We have Muslims with Jewish names. We have Muslims we don't know are Muslims, which is the kind of thing that happens outside a theocracy like Israel's.
We have 'known' Arabs and Muslims, even ones who disagree with the government, who are not terrorists, and we have terrorists we don't know have any issues with the government at all, and don't know they are Muslims.
We have, and this is possibly the most important thing, other kinds of terrorists.
Israel security works because of clear enemies, it works because their society has a lot more security restrictions to start with (especially for Palestinians), it works because they know they can't hijack a plane because the cockpit is locked and there are armed people on the plane.
It doesn't work because of 'screening', screening just keeps the optimistic idiots out.
And again for some reason 'hijackings' have been conflated with what we're fighting, terrorism, to make statistics look better. A simple airplane hijacking is not terrorism. Destroying an airplane, either with or without hijacking it first, is (almost always) terrorism.
Um, no, I'm not afraid at all. I think it's idiotic we're strip searching or looking through the clothes of anyone.
We don't give a flying fuck if someone hijacks a plane and lands it in Cuba or wherever. Everyone gets off and lives happily ever after.
We care about terrorists hijacking planes to use as weapons, or to just blow up or crash. The hijacking isn't a problem, the problem is 'kill everyone on the plane and some people on the ground'. Otherwise we're care about hijacking about as much as we care about carjacking.
And while 'terrorists who have done that with planes' is, at the moment, mostly Arabic, it's idiotic to assume that's some sort of rule, because a good half the terrorist attacks on the US have been made by radical Christians or eco-nuts.
Sure, you could go to all the trouble of making weapons that disassemble, but you hardly need to do that when they're allowing fucking laptops on the plane. Look at one of those slim-ass Mac laptops, then look at a big bulky cheap PC one, and realize that the parts take up the same amount of space, and the big one just has a bunch of empty space in it.
Empty space surrounded by weird metal shapes. Gee, could you hide metal things in there? Could you remove parts and hide big things, like guns?
Yes, sometimes they make you turn it on, but that just means you need to be clever and remove the CD tray, hard drive (Boot a USB Linux distro.), and replace the battery with something that will run two minutes.
And there's no way they can keep razor blades off a plane if they allow anything made of metal and plastic, which is like 50% of the stuff we carry around. They can go next to your AA batteries, they can go behind metal slides of floppies, they can go inside your cell phone, they can go anywhere.
And some people should randomly secretly get two or three, so it's impossible to force people to disarm...someone could still have a knife. Hide them all over the plane, too.
Or, if you want to be more plausible, how about a taser? Everyone gets a taser! With a thirty second recharge!
Completely impossible to take over a plane with. Trivial to use against someone taking over a plane.
And while some passengers don't get their masks on in time, others will help them. You pass out in 30-60 seconds, you don't die. That come a few minutes later.
The absurd income disparity and the setup that has armed gangs of people roaming the inner-city streets living off the drug purchases and prostitution rental of the suburbs is what is blame for the violent crime rate in America.
And rereading that, it sounded like I was talking to the parent poster with 'you'...I wasn't, I was talking to the American people who buy all this crap.
If you look at 'suspicious' people more, that means you look at others less. (Don't even try to argue that.) So all terrorists have to do is fly a lot and they'll find out who the government thinks is suspicious. (Plus, they'll get 'frequent fliers' quick security scans!)
Which will give terrorists the completely obvious idea that, hey, maybe we should have the non-suspicious guy carry the weapons and pass them out on the plane! And could also lead to terrorists locating information leaks and closing them. (Who knows me and you and you, but not that guy?)
And before you think searching a kid is stupid...terrorists have kids, too. Even more pointedly, terrorists can kidnap kids, or befriend them. Hell, if you can abduct a kid from a public place, you can certainly get one to carry a bag for you onto the plane. (I have a coach ticket, so do not get to carry bags onto the plane. If you will carry this bag for me onto the plane, you can read the comic book in the side pocket, but you have to give it back when we land.)
Profiling only makes sense if you assume that terrorists first board a plane the day they want to blow it up, or somehow we can scan them much more without them noticing, or they are complete retards.
But all this trying to stop weapons from getting on a plane is absurd, because humans have been making weapons out of things for 100,000 years. Like rocks, and sticks, and CDs, and, oh yeah, our hands.
I could get on an airplane and find something I could threaten someone else's life with with no prior planning. With prior planning, I could trivially take hostages.
And without any work on my part, I'd find myself and my hostage laying on the floor dead if I tried it on an airplane.
What we're getting now is what you call 'faith-based security' instead of 'reality-based security'. You just want to believe things are more secure because of what is happening, but there are exactly as secure as they've always been.
You want reality-based security? Well, there are places, called 'gas stations', that operate in high crime areas. Do they check people for weapons? Do they ban dangerous looking things? Hell no. They just put up damn bulletproof glass. Um, duh.
I don't know exactly what your point is. The prosecution being stupid is not a valid reason to allow prejudical evidence to be introduced.
You and I have absolutely no idea whether or not he used it in relation to the crime. He might have, he might not have.
He did not. Remember that 'innocent until proven guilty' thing? Well, it works on all levels. Until the state proves that he used PGP to encrypt pictures, he didn't. As they didn't even suggest that, we must assume he didn't.
And, BTW, we do know he didn't use PGP, or there would have been other computer evidence introduced. Like wiped areas of the hard drive, or encrypted files.
Geez, first you say there's no evidence of any pictures, then you admit that there is.
And this is arguing semantics, which I should expect from you. There is no evidence that pictures were taken. Testimony is not, in fact, 'evidence', and you have proven me utterly wrong and thus you 'win' the argument because I used that word to describe testimony. Congratulation.
In the real world, however, I'm not 'fighting' you and I was correct. There's no evidence there were any pictures, just some testimony. There's no evidence or testimony that these hypothetical pictures were on a computer. There's no evidence or testimony that PGP or even the computer was used in relation to this crime at all.
Of course not, we should let him go free because some prosecution lawyer told the jury that he owns PGP.
No one's even vaguely suggesting he go free. People are saying was a mistrial because the state introduce irrelevant and prejudical evidence implying something that wasn't true. A mistrial, of course, results in another trial.
People who think wireless keyboard cost too much are fools...of course the newest ones do. The older ones cost about 5 dollars extra than older wired keyboards.
And for all you people whining about batteries...I have perfectly normal keyboard and optical mouse sitting at my computer. My wireless keyboard and mouse are for when I'm not at the computer. The batteries should last almost forever, considering I press like ten keystrokes a day.
However, everyone should just bite the bullet and buy a damn battery charger and a bunch of rechargable batteries. Do it once, and never buy batteries again. I haven't purchased batteries in 6 years, and my investment was under 50 bucks. (And the price of chargers has gone down big time, and they're much nicer. I'm thinking of getting a new one, but can't justify it while mine works.)
Of course, nowadays everything seems to come with batteries, so I'm not actually using half my rechargables, they're in storage waiting for the freebies to die.
Me, I'm just wondering when it became my business to worry about which products had a viable business model.
I just laugh every time someone says 'No one makes money selling OSS'. What the fuck do I care? Is it my job to make sure that everyone is in a productive business before I use the results of that business?
Clearly someone finds it useful to produce that stuff, or they wouldn't do it! If they find it unprofitable, they're free to stop making it, duh.
Then I go and use it because it's the best tool, period, 75% of the time, and the best tool for the price another 20% of the time, and the last 5% of the time I at least know I won't end up in an MS technology deadend.
I, in turn, find it useful to get my modifications back, because then they'll be included next time I update.
Arguing that people won't produce OSS because it doesn't make them any money seems rather akin to taking a position that no one will donate blood because it doesn't make them money.
Well...they are doing that. You can't stand there and argue they won't, it's completely idiotic when they clearly are.
As far as I can tell, there's no evidence of any pictures at all, much less ones in his computer. No evidence was introducing WRT to his computer except that it had PGP on it. They didn't even assert he'd had files and wiped them.
The evidence is that a girl testified he'd taken pictures of her. There's no computer involved at all.
I have to agree with this guy's lawyer. The only reason PGP was introduced was to create uncertainity in the minds of the jury that there might have been encrypted files transfered via that computer, when there was absolutely no evidence of that at all, or that it was in any way involved in the crime.
It's completely absurd to introduce something as evidence and say 'He did this in advance so his crime would be easier to hide' when he did not, in fact, use that in relation to the crime at all!
I agree with what someone said. This is like saying your purchases of lime indicate that your murder of someone was premeditated, despite the fact the body was found without any lime on it.
Or introducing evidence that someone owes a gun in a relation to an assault charge where no gun was present. It's just a blatant attempt to prejuidice the jury.
Oh, but I forgot, he's an evil child molestor, so obviously we should just make up crap so he gets a longer sentence.
Yes, but not PGP.
Lying to the police can be illegal. Tampering with stuff that has been declared evidence or a crime scene is illegal. Helping someone else thwart the police makes you an accessory after the fact.
Even just plain screwing around with an investigation underway can be illegal. If someone gets killed and you start laying blood-soaked rags around to confuse the police, even outside the crime scene, you can, and probably will, be charged with interfering with a police investigation.
But hiding a crime you committed from the police is part of the crime. (Hence how helping someone with that makes them an accessory.)
And as such, they cannot charge people for it, anymore than they can charge someone who's speeding at 75 miles an hour for speeding at 74, 73, 72, etc miles an hour as they slowed down.
In fact, if they charged you with interfering with an investigation, they'd probably have to drop the charges if you actually committed the crime.
That doesn't mean they need to, if they can get in another way. (In fact, if he offers them the key, they have to use it, instead of cutting in.)
But they'd have to prove you had it before they could hold you in contempt, and, duh, if they could prove you had it they'd just take it!
But if you want an example: Let's say the police suspect you of murder. But you break and steal the body before they can do an autopsy, and hide it.
The police arrest you for that, and you are found guilty of taking it. At that point, yes, they can order you to hand over the body, and charge you with contempt if you fail to do so.
Yes, piecing it back together is impossible, but it very obviously has been wiped.