On other words, what you're saying is that if it had been a GOOD camera, they would have caught the criminals.
I don't think he gave us enough information to make any conclusion about why the camera didn't pick up anything worthwhile. Was it just a bad camera? Was it not pointed in the right direction? Was it broken? Was it some other reason entirely? Need more info.
I can't imagine an instance where mere website defacement could credibly be considered terrorism but it is easy to see instances where it should properly be considered a felony.
Neither can I, nor can anyone else I've talked to about it. Why, then, should this law cover such cases? Why should it cover any but the most severe cases that could plausibly be considered terrorism? We have bank robberies, shooting sprees, murders, etc. None of these are considered terrorism. Why then should any computer crimes be considered terrorism unless they are actually causing serious death and destruction with the intent of causing terror in the US?
All that being said the definitions in the ATA are loose and that opens the door to potential abuse by overzealous prosecutors.
This is absolutely true. We have a big enough problem with overzealous prosecution under the DMCA and other laws already. This law is horribly overbroad and should not be passed in anything resembling its current form.
Although there always is the possibility of some prosecutor trying to overreach their bounds using vaguely worded laws.
Exactly the point. The law is much too broad.
Someone could break into the computer system used by air traffic controllers, and use them to cause a plane crash.
Such systems are not connected to the net, and are not vulnerable to hacking from the outside. Now if you manage to get into a facility and sabotage the system, then yes, you could probably be charged with terrorism. But the law doesn't limit itself to such acts. It covers breaking into damn near any computer for almost any reason. That's just plain wrong.
As for slapping taxes on hardware, maybe then it will be time to start shoplifting.
When this happens (and it actually already has), we need to be very vocal in asking why it is that we're not allowed to copy CDs, yet there is a tax levied against CDs for that reason? Is it legal to tax something that is illegal?
And besides, the guy who I replyed to was'nt including any links either, but you did believe him anyway (just because he said what you wanted to hear)...?
No, because what he said was consistent with things that I've read before. Not just regarding sex, but also violence. There has been no link shown between viewing and acting in any study I've read about. When you say exactly the opposite, then yeah, I'd like to see something to back it up. That's why I wanted more information about your source.
He could have snuck out of the county and junped bail. But instead he choose to stay and plead not guilty....
You assume a lot here. You assume that he had the means and opportunity to jump bail. That he would have been able to make it onto a plane or boat out of the country without getting caught. There would be a huge risk in attempting such a thing as well. If he were caught, he would certainly spend quite a while in jail. It makes more sense for him to try to stick it out in court than to try to run.
Ya, there's a bunch of companies investing millions of dollars in "reabilitating" child rapers and murders.
Funny. It's actually a bunch of companies making money by throwing as many people as possible into whatever space they happen to have. And thanks to the fucking moronic laws we have on the books, non-violent offenders, and often even victim-less offenders, get thrown in with the murderers and rapists and end up coming out much worse than they went in. Our prison system is quite likely creating more violent criminals.
"If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States.
Now there's a highly scientific approach. *cough* But I'll play along just for fun.
How many of those 32,000 deaths were suicides? How many suicides did your list of countries have (by any method)? How many were self-defense? How many non-homicide crimes were committed involving guns? How many crimes were prevented in the US by the victim defending him/herself with a gun?
Unless you're willing to look at ALL the information, don't bother to try to put together a nice little bullshit collection of "facts." You don't help your argument at all with that.
Anyways, the main reason we have so many deaths in the uk is still terrrorism [1], which accounts for most of the gun related deaths
Does it really matter why the deaths occur? We could make excuses for the deaths here too. I don't really think it matters though. Dead people are dead people.
and if you want to contrast gun controls, how about sweden [apart form this week!] with texas - in sweden, 100% gun ownership, very VERY low use of guns illegialy - same said for the us, even texas?
Not really a valid comparison. Sweden has such high gun ownership because everyone there is essentially in the military reserves and required to posess a gun and know how to use it. It's also locked up and the ammunition carefully accounted for. Totally different ballgame.
Try comparing crime in Washington D.C. (complete hand-gun ban and extremely high gun-crime rate) with US cities that have concealed-carry laws (much much lower gun-crime rates).
Well, when you consider that their Office Suite monopoly is just as strong, or possibly even stronger than their desktop OS monopoly, getting out from under just one of them isn't that great of a solution. Until other office suites can read and write MS Office files, MS has a strangelhold on business data. The alternative of converting to a different format would be extremely expensive. Thus Microsoft gets to keep raising prices and business has to keep paying only because it would be even more expensive to switch than to upgrade.
Dimitri is the type of man I aspire to be. I don't think I would have the courage to go to bat for freedom in another country like ours now.
While I hope Dmitri wins his case and gets to go home soon, I don't really think he did anything particularly courageous. At least not knowingly. He never thought he'd be arrested here.
A very popular icon on/. (name not to be mentioned) who claims to be a freedom fighter insists guns should be regulated. I just don't get the hypocrisy.
I don't know of any/. icons that are all that popular. They all get heavily criticized, and just because one of them is hypocritical doesn't invalidate any of the arguments regarding guns.
92% of the computer-using world runs some form of Windows. Over 90% of the computer-using world runs MS Office. How would you expect a business to switch to an alternative OS and office suite and still expect to function in such a world? If you aren't compatible with your customers and partners, you might as well pack up and go home. None of the alternative office suites are 100% compatible with MS Office. Until such time as they can be made compatible, Microsoft has an effective lock-in.
Did everyone's humor gland become inflamed and have to be surgically removed? Can't take a joke? It was obviously meant to poke fun at pepole who take these things WAY too seriously. It was funny! Get over it!
Nice little rant there. Unfortunately you did nothing to counter any of his claims. You simply made fun of them. You end up looking dumber than you seem to think he looks. At least he made an argument.
Seems like economies of scale come into play bigtime in such a situation. If you aren't big enough, you won't be able to run efficiently enough to stay in business.
Slashdot Mirror
On other words, what you're saying is that if it had been a GOOD camera, they would have caught the criminals.
I don't think he gave us enough information to make any conclusion about why the camera didn't pick up anything worthwhile. Was it just a bad camera? Was it not pointed in the right direction? Was it broken? Was it some other reason entirely? Need more info.
I can't imagine an instance where mere website defacement could credibly be considered terrorism but it is easy to see instances where it should properly be considered a felony.
Neither can I, nor can anyone else I've talked to about it. Why, then, should this law cover such cases? Why should it cover any but the most severe cases that could plausibly be considered terrorism? We have bank robberies, shooting sprees, murders, etc. None of these are considered terrorism. Why then should any computer crimes be considered terrorism unless they are actually causing serious death and destruction with the intent of causing terror in the US?
All that being said the definitions in the ATA are loose and that opens the door to potential abuse by overzealous prosecutors.
This is absolutely true. We have a big enough problem with overzealous prosecution under the DMCA and other laws already. This law is horribly overbroad and should not be passed in anything resembling its current form.
Although there always is the possibility of some prosecutor trying to overreach their bounds using vaguely worded laws.
Exactly the point. The law is much too broad.
Someone could break into the computer system used by air traffic controllers, and use them to cause a plane crash.
Such systems are not connected to the net, and are not vulnerable to hacking from the outside. Now if you manage to get into a facility and sabotage the system, then yes, you could probably be charged with terrorism. But the law doesn't limit itself to such acts. It covers breaking into damn near any computer for almost any reason. That's just plain wrong.
As for slapping taxes on hardware, maybe then it will be time to start shoplifting.
When this happens (and it actually already has), we need to be very vocal in asking why it is that we're not allowed to copy CDs, yet there is a tax levied against CDs for that reason? Is it legal to tax something that is illegal?
He wasn't complaining about use of caps for those two, he was complaining about use of caps for "pipes".
Then why did he say this?
Also, while I'm willing to forgive the use of UNIX and COM in capitol letters
What was there to forgive? Those were correct. Sure, he goes on to say there was no reason to use caps for pipes, but nobody was disputing that.
Moron.
I think we all see the irony in that last remark now.
And besides, the guy who I replyed to was'nt including any links either, but you did believe him anyway (just because he said what you wanted to hear)...?
No, because what he said was consistent with things that I've read before. Not just regarding sex, but also violence. There has been no link shown between viewing and acting in any study I've read about. When you say exactly the opposite, then yeah, I'd like to see something to back it up. That's why I wanted more information about your source.
He could have snuck out of the county and junped bail. But instead he choose to stay and plead not guilty....
You assume a lot here. You assume that he had the means and opportunity to jump bail. That he would have been able to make it onto a plane or boat out of the country without getting caught. There would be a huge risk in attempting such a thing as well. If he were caught, he would certainly spend quite a while in jail. It makes more sense for him to try to stick it out in court than to try to run.
Ya, there's a bunch of companies investing millions of dollars in "reabilitating" child rapers and murders.
Funny. It's actually a bunch of companies making money by throwing as many people as possible into whatever space they happen to have. And thanks to the fucking moronic laws we have on the books, non-violent offenders, and often even victim-less offenders, get thrown in with the murderers and rapists and end up coming out much worse than they went in. Our prison system is quite likely creating more violent criminals.
"If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States.
Now there's a highly scientific approach. *cough* But I'll play along just for fun.
How many of those 32,000 deaths were suicides? How many suicides did your list of countries have (by any method)? How many were self-defense? How many non-homicide crimes were committed involving guns? How many crimes were prevented in the US by the victim defending him/herself with a gun?
Unless you're willing to look at ALL the information, don't bother to try to put together a nice little bullshit collection of "facts." You don't help your argument at all with that.
Without links your post is just so much more BS. Post links if you want to be taken seriously.
Anyways, the main reason we have so many deaths in the uk is still terrrorism [1], which accounts for most of the gun related deaths
Does it really matter why the deaths occur? We could make excuses for the deaths here too. I don't really think it matters though. Dead people are dead people.
and if you want to contrast gun controls, how about sweden [apart form this week!] with texas - in sweden, 100% gun ownership, very VERY low use of guns illegialy - same said for the us, even texas?
Not really a valid comparison. Sweden has such high gun ownership because everyone there is essentially in the military reserves and required to posess a gun and know how to use it. It's also locked up and the ammunition carefully accounted for. Totally different ballgame.
Try comparing crime in Washington D.C. (complete hand-gun ban and extremely high gun-crime rate) with US cities that have concealed-carry laws (much much lower gun-crime rates).
Well, when you consider that their Office Suite monopoly is just as strong, or possibly even stronger than their desktop OS monopoly, getting out from under just one of them isn't that great of a solution. Until other office suites can read and write MS Office files, MS has a strangelhold on business data. The alternative of converting to a different format would be extremely expensive. Thus Microsoft gets to keep raising prices and business has to keep paying only because it would be even more expensive to switch than to upgrade.
Dimitri is the type of man I aspire to be. I don't think I would have the courage to go to bat for freedom in another country like ours now.
While I hope Dmitri wins his case and gets to go home soon, I don't really think he did anything particularly courageous. At least not knowingly. He never thought he'd be arrested here.
Apparently I missed that episode. Damn me. Hafta find it on dvd when it comes out I guess. :)
A very popular icon on /. (name not to be mentioned) who claims to be a freedom fighter insists guns should be regulated. I just don't get the hypocrisy.
I don't know of any /. icons that are all that popular. They all get heavily criticized, and just because one of them is hypocritical doesn't invalidate any of the arguments regarding guns.
Which are all about inflecting damage.
No they aren't. They don't measure how big a hole you make in the target. They measure how accurately you placed the hole.
Then there's hunting. Like it or not, we have to kill animals to eat. Guns are very good tools for that.
Why exactly are they sending a giant disco ball into space?
and the primary emotional response this disaster provoked was contempt for TV anchorpersons.
Roger that.
Obviously the record companies are going to see that as goon tactics.
And of course nobody should be allowed to use goon tactics except the record industry.
92% of the computer-using world runs some form of Windows. Over 90% of the computer-using world runs MS Office. How would you expect a business to switch to an alternative OS and office suite and still expect to function in such a world? If you aren't compatible with your customers and partners, you might as well pack up and go home. None of the alternative office suites are 100% compatible with MS Office. Until such time as they can be made compatible, Microsoft has an effective lock-in.
Did everyone's humor gland become inflamed and have to be surgically removed? Can't take a joke? It was obviously meant to poke fun at pepole who take these things WAY too seriously. It was funny! Get over it!
We can only hope you're right about that. But most likely the Afghans will end up being the innocent victims this time.
I think the conclusion we can all draw is that these "researchers" are quite adept at wasting time and money.
Nice little rant there. Unfortunately you did nothing to counter any of his claims. You simply made fun of them. You end up looking dumber than you seem to think he looks. At least he made an argument.
Seems like economies of scale come into play bigtime in such a situation. If you aren't big enough, you won't be able to run efficiently enough to stay in business.