Unless the words are in the legislation, its not law. That line will prevent an offender from submitting a fake address, but says nothing about submitting all email addresses. And like the other poster said, they have already broken the law, and, if they are supplying false emails and then surfing myspace for tail, are planning on doing it again. Its just a lose/lose for the innocent.
Judges only count as activists if they decide for civil rights and any constitutional amendment that isn't the second amendment... They are good, upstanding judges when they side with corporations and big government.
Add to this the fact that the "terrorist" score is only a rating and doesn't include any of the reasons for the score, even to the databroker. The score could just mean you follow the wrong religion (establishment clause? what establishment clause?), dontate to a charitible organization that got on the wrong side of Bush & Co., and read the wrong books, or it could mean that you were witnessed in a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan smoking opium with OBL. Noone will ever know.
Basically, the perfect recipe for brilliant WTFery.
Two things:
1) Like others have said, maybe they didn't cheat enough. Don't know if this is true or not and probably never will, since none of the losers of close races (PA, VA, MO, etc.) are calling for recounts.
2) The states with 100% paper free voting machines were never close. "Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland and South Carolina"
Not only this, but MS did force people to use their software. Not the OS, that they did legitimately (originally) through good marketing and by working with third parties (if it weren't for IBM, there would be no Windows). MS does, however, force other software on people who buy their OS, most specifically IE and WMP. In fact, they were so determined to force IE on users that they made removing it impossible. This is where MS levereged its popularity in an illegal way to form a monopoly (or attempt to).
Popularity doesn't make one a monopoly, the lack of alternatives makes one a monopoly. For a long time there was no viable alternative to IE, everyone was forced to have it so developers were forced to make websites look good in IE or push customers away. Google is trying to be popular; not by making it so nothing else can exist, but by making good products that people want to use.
This isn't Google flexing their "monopoly" in the search field (a monopoly they don't have, and, judging by the way the internet grows, never will). This is simply them advertising their products, its no different than GE advertising thier movies ad-nauseum through thier media outlets like the Today show. It is annoying, but is far from an anti-trust breach.
Compare this to MS's actions re: IE.
No other browser, at all, ships with Windows. Windows will break, horribly, should IE ever be removed. Here, MS is using its position as the market controlling OS vendor to push another (very shoddy) unrelated software product on consumers in an attempt to edge out competition in that second software arena.
Actually, if I am remembering properly, previous court statements can, at least at the discretion of the judge, be admitted as evidence in hearings. Just using them on the "He changed his mind from before" basis probably wouldn't go far, but it can be used to show perjury or as a bullet point in support of your arguement.
blacklists, in situations where one can just add a redirect to an entirely new domain name/IP/whatever, are not effective. It will take care of the major players like playboy, but will fail miserably on the 50-80% of pr0n that's elsewhere. This is why the blocking software is so horribly inefficient and has such high error rates.
The thing is, it really isn't a time saver; although it will be advertised as such. You will still have to take the card out of your wallet (at least if you have more than one with RFID) and still bring it near the reader. Then you will still have to walk through any prompts and either sign or enter your pin. The only time saved is the 1 second (tops) that it takes for you to swipe the card. The keychain RFIDs for Mobil's SpeedPass system was a valid time saver, since you generally have your keys already if you are getting out of your car, but this is not.
As far as using biometrics, I will make no judgement about the tracking implications, but as far as security it would be a major improvement over PINs that can be sholder-surfed or signatures that the store associates don't even look at.
The credit card offers you might see in the mail (you know, with $100-300 initial fees) often offer only $500 lines of credit. Getting credit through your bank, etc. often gives you thousands of dollars of credit.
The only credit card parent company that requires a CID for online purchases is American Express. Visa, MasterCard, and Discover do not enforce this policy.
Source: I work in e-Commerce for a catalog company.
Or maybe make it worth purchasing? When you have to pay $20+ for a CD that might have one, maybe two good songs it is not worth the cost. This is why file sharing started. But when the pricing was adjusted and services allowed you to purchase just one song at a reasonable price, those services exploded.
The RIAA, MPAA, and in this case Universal has forgotten the fact that to make money they have to sell something that people want. Instead they think they can make money by forcing people to buy their product.
This is a really difficult case. It is most definitely in a gray area of the first amendment. "Free" speech, from its very inception has not been 100% free, there is a matter of safety and a matter of order in relation to it. The most common example is that one cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded stadium. When it comes to schools and the public school system, it is even more regulated. One can't just start yelling and causing a disruption in school without consequences (this has wrongly, IMO, been brought out of just the school system and into politics, but thats another issue).
In this case, the real issue, in my, very not legally trained, opinion, is whether this student's actions made his sign appear school related. The article, and the ruling, are both not entirely clear, and I am sure, short of video proof, would fall to personal opinion. That said, I don't think the SCOTUS should have taken this case, in fact, since it does fall to personal opinion, I don't think the 9th circuit court should have taken it either. The problem is now, how far will a SCOTUS ruling take this.
A script kiddie can completely take over a critical windows server. It's far harder to get your code executed as admin or with admin priviliges on a linux,unix,or OSX machine.
THAT is the biggest reason [Windows is targeted].
If you read the poster's whole comment you would have caught that.
Actually, if you look at our history, even with a "bad example" politicos still espoused totalitarian ideas. The McCarthy hearings are the best example of it from the Cold War days, but it was there long before the "demon" of Communism and Marxism were around.
Actually, the first time a US president stood up, the Republican controlled Congress chastised him. The second time a president stood up the world supported us, until said president derailed the campaign for a personal vendetta.
If 9-11 had happened 25 years ago, there would be no more USA nor USSR. (Thats one thing going for Bush, he isn't competent enough to act immediately and rashly enough to really screw things up.)
As far as the rest of your analogy goes, while it is somewhat correct, 25, even 35 years ago information still flowed pretty quickly. It didn't have the internet and 24 hour news networks' help, but you know any television and radio program of the time would have been preempted immediately with coverage of the event.
Present day is only scarier because the media does have 24 hours to hammer that fear into its viewers, not because we have immediate access to news.
You mean like the homeless iron worker who sits outside McDonalds asking for money? I don't quite understand the example.
No. I mean that nice 20 something serving you your cheese fries in your favorite diner with a smoking section. She gets pregnant and she has nowhere else to go. Noone will hire her because she is pregnant and can only work for a couple months before having to quit (even though they aren't supposed to, employers do descriminate against pregnant women, its a fact) so she is stuck exposing her child to a carcinogen.
Other than legislation, how else would they? I'm telling you to avoid legislating it.
Many businesses in the same field share common business practices, many that I don't agree with. Telecom companies, etc. all require a social security number and a credit check before they give you their service is the most common example I can think of. This isn't legislated but is almost, if not totally, global to that industry. At least in my area, and most I hear about, you cannot, without great finagling, get around these requirements.
Sure it does, you would just prefer to tell everyone to do what you want them to through legislation.
I would actually prefer most things not be legislated, but when it comes to protecting people either from companies collecting too much data and not protecting it, as exemplified in the OP, or when it comes to protecting the general populace's health, as in the smoking example, it is not just within the government's power to enact protections, but the reason for the government. The government's primary purpose, although most politicians have long since forgotten this, is for protection of the people.
The problem with the "go somewhere else" attitude is manifold.
What if there is nowhere else? example: only pharmacy in town and they won't sell you your prescription.
What if every provider of the service has the same requirements? examples are rampant.
What if you can't go somewhere else? example: single female bartender/waitress/etc. gets pregnant and needs work.
Trying the market forces excuse works for maintaining prices (if there isn't a monopoly/collusion). It does not work in situations like these.
The issue is more than just the false positive rate. The problem is that they are going through the entire DMV records. As it stands right now, most places can only go through previously arrested people for things like fingerprint and facial matches, which is something that comes with having a record. I, as a law abiding citizen on the other hand, should not be immediately thrown under suspicion just because my face is somewhat similar to a blurry CCTV image, which is what the false positive rate could cause. I have a job that requires me to be in a certain place at a certain time, thats not exactly possible if I am being held for questioning because of something someone I have never met did something on the other side of town.
If I could trust our government to use new technologies judiciously and with restraint, it wouldn't be a problem, but this hasn't ever been the case and, short of some utopia suddenly appearing, probably never will.
Microsoft founder Bill Gates is filing an IP infringment law suit claiming a patent on the "echo" command...
Do we need any more reasons to not purchase MS products?
The problem is how do you determine the second case? How do you know that my form field for a survey isn't actually trying to phish for a cc? Do we then just check sites that have a form on them? Thats still a large number and leaves a very large loophole. Even with a cache, you still have to go through potentially as many, if not more, sites from that white list cache as you would have to go through for the blacklist cache. It winds up being a draw at best.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless the words are in the legislation, its not law. That line will prevent an offender from submitting a fake address, but says nothing about submitting all email addresses. And like the other poster said, they have already broken the law, and, if they are supplying false emails and then surfing myspace for tail, are planning on doing it again. Its just a lose/lose for the innocent.
yes, my email address is t.*@gmail.com
No, CIA, FBI, and DOD. They are the bureaus actually tracking this information. The legislative and judicial will just help make it legal.
Judges only count as activists if they decide for civil rights and any constitutional amendment that isn't the second amendment... They are good, upstanding judges when they side with corporations and big government.
Add to this the fact that the "terrorist" score is only a rating and doesn't include any of the reasons for the score, even to the databroker. The score could just mean you follow the wrong religion (establishment clause? what establishment clause?), dontate to a charitible organization that got on the wrong side of Bush & Co., and read the wrong books, or it could mean that you were witnessed in a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan smoking opium with OBL. Noone will ever know.
Basically, the perfect recipe for brilliant WTFery.
Two things:
1) Like others have said, maybe they didn't cheat enough. Don't know if this is true or not and probably never will, since none of the losers of close races (PA, VA, MO, etc.) are calling for recounts.
2) The states with 100% paper free voting machines were never close. "Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland and South Carolina"
Not only this, but MS did force people to use their software. Not the OS, that they did legitimately (originally) through good marketing and by working with third parties (if it weren't for IBM, there would be no Windows). MS does, however, force other software on people who buy their OS, most specifically IE and WMP. In fact, they were so determined to force IE on users that they made removing it impossible. This is where MS levereged its popularity in an illegal way to form a monopoly (or attempt to).
Popularity doesn't make one a monopoly, the lack of alternatives makes one a monopoly. For a long time there was no viable alternative to IE, everyone was forced to have it so developers were forced to make websites look good in IE or push customers away. Google is trying to be popular; not by making it so nothing else can exist, but by making good products that people want to use.
This isn't Google flexing their "monopoly" in the search field (a monopoly they don't have, and, judging by the way the internet grows, never will). This is simply them advertising their products, its no different than GE advertising thier movies ad-nauseum through thier media outlets like the Today show. It is annoying, but is far from an anti-trust breach.
Compare this to MS's actions re: IE.
No other browser, at all, ships with Windows. Windows will break, horribly, should IE ever be removed. Here, MS is using its position as the market controlling OS vendor to push another (very shoddy) unrelated software product on consumers in an attempt to edge out competition in that second software arena.
Actually, if I am remembering properly, previous court statements can, at least at the discretion of the judge, be admitted as evidence in hearings. Just using them on the "He changed his mind from before" basis probably wouldn't go far, but it can be used to show perjury or as a bullet point in support of your arguement.
This will make the white list as effective at controlling "good"/"bad" sites as wikipedia is at controlling facts on controversial subjects.
blacklists, in situations where one can just add a redirect to an entirely new domain name/IP/whatever, are not effective. It will take care of the major players like playboy, but will fail miserably on the 50-80% of pr0n that's elsewhere. This is why the blocking software is so horribly inefficient and has such high error rates.
The thing is, it really isn't a time saver; although it will be advertised as such. You will still have to take the card out of your wallet (at least if you have more than one with RFID) and still bring it near the reader. Then you will still have to walk through any prompts and either sign or enter your pin. The only time saved is the 1 second (tops) that it takes for you to swipe the card. The keychain RFIDs for Mobil's SpeedPass system was a valid time saver, since you generally have your keys already if you are getting out of your car, but this is not.
As far as using biometrics, I will make no judgement about the tracking implications, but as far as security it would be a major improvement over PINs that can be sholder-surfed or signatures that the store associates don't even look at.
The credit card offers you might see in the mail (you know, with $100-300 initial fees) often offer only $500 lines of credit. Getting credit through your bank, etc. often gives you thousands of dollars of credit.
The only credit card parent company that requires a CID for online purchases is American Express. Visa, MasterCard, and Discover do not enforce this policy.
Source: I work in e-Commerce for a catalog company.
Or maybe make it worth purchasing? When you have to pay $20+ for a CD that might have one, maybe two good songs it is not worth the cost. This is why file sharing started. But when the pricing was adjusted and services allowed you to purchase just one song at a reasonable price, those services exploded.
The RIAA, MPAA, and in this case Universal has forgotten the fact that to make money they have to sell something that people want. Instead they think they can make money by forcing people to buy their product.
This is a really difficult case. It is most definitely in a gray area of the first amendment. "Free" speech, from its very inception has not been 100% free, there is a matter of safety and a matter of order in relation to it. The most common example is that one cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded stadium. When it comes to schools and the public school system, it is even more regulated. One can't just start yelling and causing a disruption in school without consequences (this has wrongly, IMO, been brought out of just the school system and into politics, but thats another issue).
In this case, the real issue, in my, very not legally trained, opinion, is whether this student's actions made his sign appear school related. The article, and the ruling, are both not entirely clear, and I am sure, short of video proof, would fall to personal opinion. That said, I don't think the SCOTUS should have taken this case, in fact, since it does fall to personal opinion, I don't think the 9th circuit court should have taken it either. The problem is now, how far will a SCOTUS ruling take this.
A script kiddie can completely take over a critical windows server. It's far harder to get your code executed as admin or with admin priviliges on a linux,unix,or OSX machine.
THAT is the biggest reason [Windows is targeted].
If you read the poster's whole comment you would have caught that.
Actually, if you look at our history, even with a "bad example" politicos still espoused totalitarian ideas. The McCarthy hearings are the best example of it from the Cold War days, but it was there long before the "demon" of Communism and Marxism were around.
Actually, the first time a US president stood up, the Republican controlled Congress chastised him. The second time a president stood up the world supported us, until said president derailed the campaign for a personal vendetta.
If 9-11 had happened 25 years ago, there would be no more USA nor USSR. (Thats one thing going for Bush, he isn't competent enough to act immediately and rashly enough to really screw things up.)
As far as the rest of your analogy goes, while it is somewhat correct, 25, even 35 years ago information still flowed pretty quickly. It didn't have the internet and 24 hour news networks' help, but you know any television and radio program of the time would have been preempted immediately with coverage of the event.
Present day is only scarier because the media does have 24 hours to hammer that fear into its viewers, not because we have immediate access to news.
You mean like the homeless iron worker who sits outside McDonalds asking for money? I don't quite understand the example.
No. I mean that nice 20 something serving you your cheese fries in your favorite diner with a smoking section. She gets pregnant and she has nowhere else to go. Noone will hire her because she is pregnant and can only work for a couple months before having to quit (even though they aren't supposed to, employers do descriminate against pregnant women, its a fact) so she is stuck exposing her child to a carcinogen.
Other than legislation, how else would they? I'm telling you to avoid legislating it.
Many businesses in the same field share common business practices, many that I don't agree with. Telecom companies, etc. all require a social security number and a credit check before they give you their service is the most common example I can think of. This isn't legislated but is almost, if not totally, global to that industry. At least in my area, and most I hear about, you cannot, without great finagling, get around these requirements.
Sure it does, you would just prefer to tell everyone to do what you want them to through legislation.
I would actually prefer most things not be legislated, but when it comes to protecting people either from companies collecting too much data and not protecting it, as exemplified in the OP, or when it comes to protecting the general populace's health, as in the smoking example, it is not just within the government's power to enact protections, but the reason for the government. The government's primary purpose, although most politicians have long since forgotten this, is for protection of the people.
The problem with the "go somewhere else" attitude is manifold. What if there is nowhere else? example: only pharmacy in town and they won't sell you your prescription. What if every provider of the service has the same requirements? examples are rampant. What if you can't go somewhere else? example: single female bartender/waitress/etc. gets pregnant and needs work. Trying the market forces excuse works for maintaining prices (if there isn't a monopoly/collusion). It does not work in situations like these.
The issue is more than just the false positive rate. The problem is that they are going through the entire DMV records. As it stands right now, most places can only go through previously arrested people for things like fingerprint and facial matches, which is something that comes with having a record. I, as a law abiding citizen on the other hand, should not be immediately thrown under suspicion just because my face is somewhat similar to a blurry CCTV image, which is what the false positive rate could cause. I have a job that requires me to be in a certain place at a certain time, thats not exactly possible if I am being held for questioning because of something someone I have never met did something on the other side of town. If I could trust our government to use new technologies judiciously and with restraint, it wouldn't be a problem, but this hasn't ever been the case and, short of some utopia suddenly appearing, probably never will.
Microsoft founder Bill Gates is filing an IP infringment law suit claiming a patent on the "echo" command... Do we need any more reasons to not purchase MS products?
The problem is how do you determine the second case? How do you know that my form field for a survey isn't actually trying to phish for a cc? Do we then just check sites that have a form on them? Thats still a large number and leaves a very large loophole. Even with a cache, you still have to go through potentially as many, if not more, sites from that white list cache as you would have to go through for the blacklist cache. It winds up being a draw at best.