Slight correction: Here in the South, while we do have people who use the word 'Coke' to mean 'carbonated beverage', it doesn't mean, persay, Coke. It's the same as using 'Kleenex' to mean 'tissue paper' and 'Xerox machine' to mean 'copier'...
If fact, I doubt Coke likes it...a couple more decades of this and they will lose the trademark.
The correct name down here is 'soft drink', or 'soda'. (Don't come down here and ask for pop, or even soda pop, we look at you weird.)
-David T. C.
Re:But what about popup box trojans
on
Gnutella VBS Worm
·
· Score: 1
You mean Alt-Sysreq-K, which disconnected all programs from the console and logs you out?
What, putting the word 'idiot' makes it flamebait? What if he was an idiot? Thinking NT supports all networks still in use makes you an idiot in my book. Thinking any OS supports all networks still in use makes you one.
Watch this get modded down also, assuming any moderators hang out in this discussion anymore.
Yeah, I found the defination of 'illegal' is merely 'prohibited by law', and I know we have statues on libel, so it is illegal. However, it is not, and cannot be, 'criminal'.
Again...he was locked up, for 7 days, with no charges against him, simply because he insulted the popular students and teachers.
Hell, I'd be pissed even if they had brought charges against him of 'criminal libel', cause that really would just be an excuse to lock him up until trial, because the supreme court traditionally has been striking down criminal libel charges since the mid 60s. It's like arresting someone under the Comstock act for distributing information about abortions. That law is dead letter.
Yes, I am aware that Utah has a criminal libel law. However, that law is what is known as 'dead letter', as in, it's 99.999% probably unconstitutional. Aka, other laws like that have been found unconstitutional.
May I just note that, at this point, he hasn't be sued for anything, or charged with anything, so there is not 'prosecutors'. He's merely been locked up and had his computer taken to be searched.
Hey, wait a minute...he hasn't been charged with anything...
Yes, heaven forbid we teach our children that people can't call something libel, and get other people arrested for that, despite there being no criminal law against libel.
Erm...speech can almost never be illegal. The only way it can be illegal is either threatening someone, or inciting to riot, or anything else designed to cause imediate physical harm. None of which this kid did.
Now, he made have libelled or slandered some people...but that isn't a criminal offense. I can print 'So and So tortures cats' on the front page of a newspaper, and the police can't do anything about it. It's not 'illegal' in that sense. (I'm not sure what the legal defination of illegal is.) But, it's not even a misdemeanor. I can't be arrested, or even fined. However, So and So can sue me.
The 'proper', legally speaking, response to this would have been for some of the 'drunk' teachers to sue him. (The real proper response would be nothing.) Arresting him is a huge abuse of police power.
If I were that kid, I'd sue the daylights out of that school, and that police department. I mean, if they suspended him, he might have just been able to get them for violating 1st amendment rights. (You do have the right, even if you're underaged, to spread libel, BTW. You just shouldn't be surprised why you get sued.) As it is now, he can get them on....1st, 4th, and 5th violations, at the least. You could probably get the 6th in there too.
P.S. It really saddens me when people think slander can get you arrested. It saddens me even more when corrrupt police make them right.
Do people take classes on how to not read the articles? The problem here is that the kid was jailed cause of what may or may not be libel. Libel is a civil offense, not criminal, so it doesn't matter if he was libel or not, he technically can't go to jail for it...yet he did.
Because, it would appear, most people don't seem to have a problem with it. People expect coffee to be hot, and if the market has decided that it doesn't mind (people still buy McDonald's coffee, right?), then what's the harm in that
Are you aware how hot 200 degrees is? No one on earth wants coffee that hot. It would burn your lips. The whole reason they were doing it was they were assuming it was all 'carry to work' coffee or something stupid. And they don't serve it that hot anymore.
As it has been pointed out before, the only reason that hack works is you have to trust a binary, namely, the compiler you used in the first place. This is as pointless to worry about as backdoors in the CPU.
It isn't a flaw in the Open Source proccess, it's just a flaw in general, much like smoke dectectors that short out and catch on fire and cutting power and batteries to power monitoring systems, or, to be more realistic, an organized plan by security companies to rob people they protect. Sure, all those are possible, but there is no way to protect against it except by the reputation of people.
Basically, at some point in time, you have to trust some external party, whether it's the people who sold you your door locks (What, you mean you bought them from WalMart?), to the guy you give money to at the fast food window before you get your food, to the people you bought a box from that said '15 inch monitor' on the outside without looking inside it. Without trust, we'd all have to start from scratch, and hope to god no one is going around poisoning the berries before we pick them off the bushes. And don't even think about sleeping without digging a huge moat, and hoping no one snuck inside while you were digging it.
Along with MOOs, look at MUSHes and MUCKs, MOOs have a C-like language, IIRC, while on MUSHes you can use simple commands or almost LISP-like functions, and MUCKs have a version of Forth. Like the previous poster said, programming in an environment when other people are in the same environment as you, and can look at your code and help is very nice.
As for the easiest, I think MUSH commands would be the simpliest:
Um, actually, the defination of 'civil disobediance' is breaking the law.
Most specifically, it's breaking a law so you will get arrested, either cause you think that specific law is unjust, or, like protests who deliberately step two feet past the police barricades at protests to get arrested, merely to get publicity.
I'm sorry, but in my real world, libraries don't censor information. Of any sort.
And, there is no good way to block porn from homes. If that's ever going to happen, maybe the providers could use one of the existing standards, like PICS, to mark porn. As they choose not to, there is no way to decide what is what, and the tech community is aware of this, and chooses not to waste its time upping the filters from 50% accuracy to 60%, or whatever.
And, like you pointed out, most of us could give a flying fuck whether kids can see porn or not. We do hate to see people defrauded by products, like blocking software, that doesn't work.
All in all, devising products to block certain information that certain people want to make public just gives most of the tech community the willies. Yesterday, it's illegal porn, today, it's illegal mp3...tomorrow, it's illegal movies...the day after that, it's illegal libel, and in a week, it's offensive comments, then in a month, it's illegal opinions.
Basically, 'information wants to be free'. It sounds silly, but most of the tech community is of the opinion that if X has information they're willing to give away, that Y wants to know, Y should be able to get it. Period. No exceptions. Allowing all information exchanged between two partys to be filted by Z is just horrible to think about for most of us.
Slashdot Mirror
If fact, I doubt Coke likes it...a couple more decades of this and they will lose the trademark.
The correct name down here is 'soft drink', or 'soda'. (Don't come down here and ask for pop, or even soda pop, we look at you weird.)
-David T. C.
You mean Alt-Sysreq-K, which disconnected all programs from the console and logs you out?
-David T. C.
There is no message here.
-David T. C.
Watch this get modded down also, assuming any moderators hang out in this discussion anymore.
-David T. C.
Hey, moderators, I'm glad you're for gun control, or whatever, but either mod the one below me up, or mod me back down.
-David T. C.
Ah, but the supreme court has been striking down criminal libel cases since the mid 60s.
-David T. C.
I must point out that his friend was libeled in school newspaper's gossip column.
-David T. C.
Yeah, I found the defination of 'illegal' is merely 'prohibited by law', and I know we have statues on libel, so it is illegal. However, it is not, and cannot be, 'criminal'.
-David T. C.
Hell, I'd be pissed even if they had brought charges against him of 'criminal libel', cause that really would just be an excuse to lock him up until trial, because the supreme court traditionally has been striking down criminal libel charges since the mid 60s. It's like arresting someone under the Comstock act for distributing information about abortions. That law is dead letter.
-David T. C.
Yes, I am aware that Utah has a criminal libel law. However, that law is what is known as 'dead letter', as in, it's 99.999% probably unconstitutional. Aka, other laws like that have been found unconstitutional.
-David T. C.
Libel is a civil crime. You cannot be locked up for it, EVER. You got that? Comprendre?
As an added bonus, the kid has not been sued for libel anyway! The arrticle mentioned he might be sued for libel.
He was locked up for...well...nothing.
-David T. C.
Hey, wait a minute...he hasn't been charged with anything...
-David T. C.
Yes, heaven forbid we teach our children that people can't call something libel, and get other people arrested for that, despite there being no criminal law against libel.
-David T. C.
He wasd arrested. As in, locked up. For a civil offense. If you don't see something wrong with this, you need to go back to civics class.
-David T. C.
Now, he made have libelled or slandered some people...but that isn't a criminal offense. I can print 'So and So tortures cats' on the front page of a newspaper, and the police can't do anything about it. It's not 'illegal' in that sense. (I'm not sure what the legal defination of illegal is.) But, it's not even a misdemeanor. I can't be arrested, or even fined. However, So and So can sue me.
The 'proper', legally speaking, response to this would have been for some of the 'drunk' teachers to sue him. (The real proper response would be nothing.) Arresting him is a huge abuse of police power.
If I were that kid, I'd sue the daylights out of that school, and that police department. I mean, if they suspended him, he might have just been able to get them for violating 1st amendment rights. (You do have the right, even if you're underaged, to spread libel, BTW. You just shouldn't be surprised why you get sued.) As it is now, he can get them on....1st, 4th, and 5th violations, at the least. You could probably get the 6th in there too.
P.S. It really saddens me when people think slander can get you arrested. It saddens me even more when corrrupt police make them right.
-David T. C.
Do people take classes on how to not read the articles? The problem here is that the kid was jailed cause of what may or may not be libel. Libel is a civil offense, not criminal, so it doesn't matter if he was libel or not, he technically can't go to jail for it...yet he did.
-David T. C.
Are you aware how hot 200 degrees is? No one on earth wants coffee that hot. It would burn your lips. The whole reason they were doing it was they were assuming it was all 'carry to work' coffee or something stupid. And they don't serve it that hot anymore.
-David T. C.
Except the article points out there is no evidence it did so, and quite a lot of evidence it didn't.
-David T. C.
It isn't a flaw in the Open Source proccess, it's just a flaw in general, much like smoke dectectors that short out and catch on fire and cutting power and batteries to power monitoring systems, or, to be more realistic, an organized plan by security companies to rob people they protect. Sure, all those are possible, but there is no way to protect against it except by the reputation of people.
Basically, at some point in time, you have to trust some external party, whether it's the people who sold you your door locks (What, you mean you bought them from WalMart?), to the guy you give money to at the fast food window before you get your food, to the people you bought a box from that said '15 inch monitor' on the outside without looking inside it. Without trust, we'd all have to start from scratch, and hope to god no one is going around poisoning the berries before we pick them off the bushes. And don't even think about sleeping without digging a huge moat, and hoping no one snuck inside while you were digging it.
-David T. C.
As for the easiest, I think MUSH commands would be the simpliest:
@create Cat
&TELL_PET Cat=^* says, "Cat, follow *.":follow %1
-David T. C.
Most specifically, it's breaking a law so you will get arrested, either cause you think that specific law is unjust, or, like protests who deliberately step two feet past the police barricades at protests to get arrested, merely to get publicity.
-David T. C.
And, there is no good way to block porn from homes. If that's ever going to happen, maybe the providers could use one of the existing standards, like PICS, to mark porn. As they choose not to, there is no way to decide what is what, and the tech community is aware of this, and chooses not to waste its time upping the filters from 50% accuracy to 60%, or whatever.
And, like you pointed out, most of us could give a flying fuck whether kids can see porn or not. We do hate to see people defrauded by products, like blocking software, that doesn't work.
All in all, devising products to block certain information that certain people want to make public just gives most of the tech community the willies. Yesterday, it's illegal porn, today, it's illegal mp3...tomorrow, it's illegal movies...the day after that, it's illegal libel, and in a week, it's offensive comments, then in a month, it's illegal opinions.
Basically, 'information wants to be free'. It sounds silly, but most of the tech community is of the opinion that if X has information they're willing to give away, that Y wants to know, Y should be able to get it. Period. No exceptions. Allowing all information exchanged between two partys to be filted by Z is just horrible to think about for most of us.
-David T. C.
I don't agree with that. I don't see how the mere act of me claiming something allows anyone to find out who I am, just cause they disagree with me.
-David T. C.
Oddly enough, I emailed this to myself, and pine gave me no way to open it. I had to save it, chmod +x it, and run it.
-David T. C.
The there are a few old Coke formulas that have been leaked, accidently, by Coca-cola's own hand. You can do whatever you want with these.
-David T. C.