Nobody thought he was innocent. Nobody claimed he was innocent. He committed a crime and deserved to be punished. What everbody was outraged about is the way his case was manipulated. The was he wasn't given access to the evidence against him. The way he spent months in solitary confinement like he was a murderer or something. The way the companies he was accused of hacking were claiming millions in damages, yet they couldn't show that any actual harm was done, nor did they report the losses on their SEC filings as they are required to do if they actually suffered the losses (so they later retracted their damage claims). Now, on top of serving five years and now probation with absolutely no access to computers, they are trying to take away his right to free speech. I'd say that this has gone well beyond punishment. It's become a vendetta against him by the government.
The point is that he served his time. They should not be able to prohibit him from speaking about his experience and about computer security. Five years has not invalidated his knowledge since much of the technology has not changed all that much. It's been improved certainly, but his knowledge is still quite useful, especially in an industry that claims that there is a severe lack of skilled workers. He should have no problem finding a job once he's allowed to use computers again.
He knows (now) what he did was wrong... gee, five years in a federal prison to realize that?
I don't condone what he did, but I can't blame him for attempting to evade capture. When you consider that the companies involved were lying through their teeth about the damages (which they later retracted), the government was wanting to make an example out of him, which implies an overly harsh sentence, and the fact that he would be severely mistreated during his time in prison, I would do the same thing. There was no justice done here. It was a stunt pulled by the government. They wanted someone to crucify as an example. They threw justice out the window and used every trick they could come up with to try to destroy his life. Kevin is a criminal. What he did was wrong. The difference between him and the people who prosecuted him is that he was convicted for his crime and served his sentence. They seem to be above the law.
Yes, actually. It would depend on the person, the crime, and whether I think he/she's a better person now. Considering that many candidates for major elections are unconvicted felons, I'd rather vote for the one that has served his time and recognizes the consequences of his actions rather than the one that appears to be above the law and has never been held accountable for his actions.
And it's everyone fault that a "dispropotionate number of black males" are convicted felons?
It's been shown that minorities are far more likely (something like 6 times) than non-minorities to be tried as adults, convicted, and sentenced to adult facilities. If the legal system is so skewed, and I believe it is, then it is certainly not right to further persecute these people after they've done their time.
Is the law descriminating against black males? No.
I think you're wrong about this.
Does this make it right to repeal the law so "more black people can vote"?
That's not the real reason the law should be repealed. It should never have been passed in the first place. If a person has served his time, he should not be considered a second or third class citizen, and certainly should not be prohibited from voting. That's one of the most fundamental rights in a democracy. They are effectively being excluded from the democratic process. They cannot effectively have a voice in opposing the government that convicted them, even though they don't agree with the laws they were accused of breaking. Drug laws are the most perfect example. The "war on drugs" has done more to take away our rights and more to divide the country into haves and have-nots than any other single policy. The rich can do drugs to their hearts content. They have good lawyers. The poor? Not a chance. They rot in prison for years for a petty offense. Zero tolerance policies, extreme punishments, persecution after the sentence has been served, removal of fundamental rights even after the sentence has been served, unequal treatment by courts depending on race and financial status. These are just some of the many unjustices that occur frequently in our "justice" system. They just keep getting worse too.
As far as I'm concerned, he did his time and should be free to talk about it now. They've already managed to take away any possibility of him getting a good job doing what he is best at. They should at least let him make money somehow. Not to mention that taking away his freedom to speak to others is just plain wrong. Looks like it's time to break out the "Free Kevin" stickers and signs again.
That much I know, but happy != corny, and neither does joyful. Most of us remember the song from the Flintstones, "...we'll have a gay old time." In that context, the British meaning of gay makes sense. Still doesn't shed any light on the earlier poster's use of the word though.
If they're getting a cut from every digital recording device sold in order to compensate for losses due to copyright infringement, why isn't it legal to distribute copies? After all, you're compensating them for it. That recording device tax is one of the shadier things I've heard of them doing. There's gotta be some way to invalidate it. It just seems completely illogical.
Oops, I meant to say one of its weakness when it comes to UNIX becoming mainstream as a desktop standard.
Even as far as becoming a mainstream standard, multiple window manager options is still not a weakness. Perhaps a lack of a consistent default interface could be considered a weakness (and is considered one by many), but having options available is never a weakness for an OS. I, personally, don't think that a lack of an official WM for Linux is a weakness. OEMs will figure out what their customers want and give it to them. If they want a wm that looks like Windows, then that's what they'll get. If they want something else, they can have that too. If the customer is a company and doesn't want multiple window managers on their machines, then the OEM will just make sure that only the wm that the customer selected is loaded. It really makes sense to handle things this way. It gives OEMs the maximum flexibility to serve their customers and to differentiate themselves, while at the same time, it gives customers a choice in how they will use their computers.
If it's done right, you could easily switch from that baffling UI to one that you understand and can use.
Different window manager are one of the weak points of unices, which is very much different from the lies you are trying to spread.
How is having options a weakness? People are free to use the wm that makes sense to them. There are some that look nearly exactly like Windows and use all the same terminology and metaphors. There are others that are very different and satisfy different types of users. There is no weakness in having options available. If I'm an OEM, then I'll use the wm that I think my users want. If they don't know what they want, then I'll ask them what OS they have experience with and I'll give them the wm that most closely matches that OS. If they have no experience, then maybe I'll give them the wm that is easiest to learn, or that is the most like Windows if Windows is still the dominant OS. The fact that there are options is not a weakness, it's one of the things that makes Linux better.
I think what is needed goes well beyond simple "themes." Entirely different kinds of interfaces should be possible. Simlar to switching from the GUI to the CLI on a Unix/Linux system. Each of these UIs may be themeable in some way or to some extent as well.
I don't think switching UIs is too advanced of a concept for people to grasp. Its like using a different tool for a task. If they are presented with an option, they will have the ability to decide which interface they like. As long as it is easy to switch between the different interfaces, there shouldn't be any real confusion. It will probably increase the complexity of support, but that can be dealt with. It's just another fork to take when the helpdesk people try to figure out what to do about your problem/question.
Actually, from what I understand, they can't release the code due to NDAs with other companies whose technology they use. Or something along those lines. Wonder if that'll change anytime soon. Prolly not.
But I still have yet to see a convincing argument for regulating open source itself,
This depends on what you mean by regulation. One of the things that's been discussed is making sure our government favors open source over closed source software. This really isn't a bad thing. Having complete and open access to the source, along with the ability to modify that source is something that makes OSS inherently more valuable than closed source software. It makes sense that the government should consider this a desired feature of the software it uses. It doesn't make sense to keep using software that sells for very high prices when there is free software that can do nearly everything that the commercial software does, and in some cases even more, with the added perqs of being free or very inexpensive as well as having the source available. Instead of government purchasers having to justify not purchasing a Microsoft product, they should really have to justify their choice to purchase an MS product over an open source product.
The money saved on licensing fees would be enormous. This money could be used for support costs (which they have with closed source products anyway), as well as for beefing up security (which is sorely lacking), probably with a fair amount left over.
That said, let me get to the more important reason. If we're going to keep moving forward with new ideas and new implementations, we need a foundation we can build on. Microsoft is not that foundation. We need software that is open and readily available to anyone that wants it. We need access to the code that is the foundation that new ideas will be built upon. It only makes sense that our government should promote this goal as best it can. OSS will not be the right choice in every situation, but it should be used in every situation in which it will suffice. The government needs to lead the way in implementing OSS as a foundation and a philosophy. Closed source has helped to challenge OSS and make it better, but closed source software is not a good foundation to lock ourselves into, simply because we, as a country, do not have any real control over it and it does not serve our interests first and foremost. OSS is available to us. It is inexpensive. It offers us vastly greater control and freedom. It is the sensible choice.
All I can say is "why?" Lessig gives no reason laws are needed, in fact he has nothing to say about the open source movement at all.
You should read Lessig's book, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. He gives very good reasons why regulation is needed. I think one of the most obvious reasons is that regulation always exists, regardless of what we may want. It's just a question of who is calling the shots. As he said, "'no regulation' is not on the table."
The internet was born with the help of regulation. It flourished with the help of regulation. The main danger to it now is the lack of (proper) regulation of new networks (cable, etc).
Lessig's point is that we need to make sure the government is implementing the right kinds of regulation in order to keep the Net open and available to all. If we don't wake up and start participating in the debate and making our voices heard in Washington, we'll continue to have the various industries calling the shots since they'll be the only ones talking to our government. We'll continue to end up with bad regulation like the DMCA and UCITA.
I wouldn't consider "free software" to be a code word. He's gone to great lengths to explain what he means when he uses that term. However, when you're writing about larger issues, it's just not sensible to insert the definition of free software into your writing when the term itself will suffice.
Yeah, and next we'll be tossing 8 year olds in jail. They should just grow up and be responsible for themselves! Just like that. All by themselves! If anything we've heard about this case is true, it sounds like the kids father is a lot more screwed up than he is. The kid should be punished, but not the way they seem to want to punish hackers these days. i.e. Lock 'em up and throw away the key. This is a kid. He deserves a chance to change. He isn't a violent criminal with no conscience. He's a kid that pulled a stupid prank. Yeah, it was a prank that caused a lot of commotion and probably caused some sites to lose some money, but I doubt the damage was anywhere near what they claim it was. They always blow hacking damages all out of proportion, usually be several orders of magnitude. Then they can never back up their claims. The kid should probably (at most) spend a month in juvie. Then they need to make sure he is taken care of. Sounds like his dad might not be around to do it.
I don't have a problem with people being held responsible for their actions, but there needs to be some perspective on things. Destroying a kids life because he made a stupid error in judgement is not the answer.
Every corp in existance will just register their name/trademark/whatever else they're known by under every TLD anyway. Just like they do now with.com,.net, and.org. We're just going to have an even bigger mess.
Even in cases where the driver was drunk, it is called an accident the whole while as the driver is on trial.
Actually drunk drivers are routinely convicted of vehicular manslaughter. The term "accident" is just a very deeply ingrained term when it comes to vehicles. If I was a legitmate gun owner and accidently shot someone while cleaning a gun, they don't call that an accident. Neither should it be called an accident when someone kills somebody after getting behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated. It should be called vehicular manslaughter at the very least, and murder 2 at the most.
People commit murder regardless of what weapon they have available. How many murders committed last year were not committed using a gun? I bet a large portion of the people who used a gun would have used another weapon had a gun not been available (although its hard to imagine someone not being able to get a gun if they want one, same as drugs). Even assuming you could get rid of guns (completely impossible IMO), I don't see the other problems in this country being fixed, so we'll still have the environment in which people will commit murder, simply because they either feel it's right in their situation, or they don't care at all. The way things are going, it's probably just going to get worse too.
The rest of your points are quite reasonable, though you'll usually have more luck outrunning a knife than a bullet.
If I'm defending my home or family, I'm not likely to be running. In other circumstances, running might be a wise idea. As the article I mentioned shows though (and you seem to agree), you're going to have a real tough time trying to get guns away from criminals. So, I'd just as soon not bring a knife to a gunfight.
Doesn't the record industry already collect a tax on recordable media to compensate for copyright infringement? Why the hell should we be sued when we're already being taxed? They need to decide whether copyright infringement is legal, and thus taxable, or illegal, and thus non-taxable. They should not be able to have it both ways!
Harmless fun nearly by definition. Quite unobjectionable on its own merits, although other methods to both hunt and fire projectiles at targets exist.
Other methods of transportation exist, yet we do not ban automobiles, despite the fact that they kill tens of thousands of people every year. The point is that while other methods are available, they are not equivalent. We use the method that works best for us.
In both England and Japan, effective policing takes place without arms, but then, the people are not armed either.
Wrong. England is currently having a seriou s gun problem. Guns are still coming into the country despite the ban. Why? Because people still want them, and other people can make money off of them. Criminals still get all the guns they want. They are having problems with gangs toting around automatics. The police still use guns as well (note the picture in that article). Not all of them carry a gun all the time, but they definitely still keep them handy. I haven't read anything about Japan's situation, so I can't comment on that.
Multiple armed home invaders aren't going to be very amused by resistance.
Actually, resistance is usually enough to send them packing. They are there for the quick, easy score. They don't want to die over it.
At least with knifes, the chances are that they'll only wound one another.
Sorry, but as you pointed out, some people are bigger and stronger than others. I have no intention of engaging in a knife fight with someone. A gun is much more effective. Even a warning shot will often make an intruder run rather than take his chances against someone with a gun. The odds are way too even, and possibly even against him. If I am competent in the use of my gun, then I am unlikely to be disarmed or have it used against me. I think the real thing that gives guns a bad name is that people don't learn how to handle them. They think it's just like on tv, you point and shoot and bad guys start dropping. I personally think you should have to pass a test to own a gun, just like you do in order to drive a car. There are just too many incompetent gun owners. But, until there are non-lethal weapons available to the public that are at least as effective in any given situation as a gun, I believe we all have the right to defend ourselves and our families to the best of our ability and with the most effective weapon available to us.
I think it highly unlikely that either one of us can convert the other to the opposite way of thinking, but if you'd like to continue the discussion, I am quite happy to.
You're probably right, but naturally I couldn't let your post go unanswered. You understand, of course.:)
Actually, it hasn't been ruled illegal yet. If it were already illegal, the court wouldn't even have to decide that point, it would just have to determine whether or not the defendants posessed or distributed it. They already admit to that, but they deny that DeCSS is illegal. There are provisions in the DMCA for reverse engineering for compatibility reasons, which is what DeCSS was for. That will be a large part of their defense. Until this case is decided, we won't know whether DeCSS is illegal or not.
Are the manufacturers responsible when the product's primary use is illegal and they make no bones about it? Yes.
The primary use of guns is not illegal. The primary use is for law enforcement, self-defense, and sport. There are illegal uses as well, such as armed robbery, assault, and murder. These are all illegal and anyone committing such a crime should certainly be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It does not mean that the rest of us should lose the right to effectively defend ourselves, our families, and our homes.
I don't believe that such a list would really work, but it is certainly an example of the measures which were open to them.
I don't know of any measures that could effectively prevent the transfer of copyrighted works. What it comes down to is a bunch of unidentifiable bits. Don't know of any way to filter those.
The interesting thing is that apparently the RIAA has said that they aren't going to go after users. C'est la vie.
Yep. They have no interest in pursuing those who are actually infringing on their copyright. They are looking for a quick fix that will end up setting a bad precedent that they will use to remove even more of our rights in the future. This is almost exactly the same thing the MPAA is doing with DeCSS.
On the other hand, these guns wouldn't be there without the manufacturers and they are therefore indirectly responsible.
The gunmakers are selling a legitimate product. It, like many other products, can be used for illegal purposes. That does not mean that the company is even indirectly responsible for those actions. People never go after knife makers when someone is stabbed to death. Why go after gun makers? If you go after gun makers, why not automobile makers? All you end up doing is trying to shift the responsibility to someone else, even though they were selling a perfectly legitimate product.
The lawsuits against gunmakers on deaths should be thrown out of court.
Couldn't agree more with this, although I don't think I agree with your overall stance on guns.
(Likewise with smoking. Can't smokers read warning labels that first said smoking is harmful, later that smoking kills?)
For anyone who started in the last 20 years, and barring any unusual circumstances, I think I agree with you. However, I also think that the cigarette companies did conspire to hide the facts from consumers about the harm that smoking causes, as well as the fact that it is highly addictive. It's not just a matter of saying "oh, I'd better quit" after you realize that smoking will quite probably kill you. For these reasons, I think that many of the people who are filing suits against the cigarette companies have a legitimate grievance.
DeCSS is not illegal. Only certain specific sites have been prohibited from distributing it due to the MPAA having obtained a preliminary injunction against them. Any site that has not been hit with such an injunction is legally allowed to distribute DeCSS.
People in the patent office trying to apply it to individual patent applications must be so perplexed that they are easily swayed by factors other than the law.
I think that's what I'm getting at. The people in the patent office aren't qualified to be making the decisions they're making. An expert in the field is the only one who can make the call on whether something is obvious or not. There are probably damn few experts in any field employed by the patent office. They can usually get better jobs elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody thought he was innocent. Nobody claimed he was innocent. He committed a crime and deserved to be punished. What everbody was outraged about is the way his case was manipulated. The was he wasn't given access to the evidence against him. The way he spent months in solitary confinement like he was a murderer or something. The way the companies he was accused of hacking were claiming millions in damages, yet they couldn't show that any actual harm was done, nor did they report the losses on their SEC filings as they are required to do if they actually suffered the losses (so they later retracted their damage claims). Now, on top of serving five years and now probation with absolutely no access to computers, they are trying to take away his right to free speech. I'd say that this has gone well beyond punishment. It's become a vendetta against him by the government.
The point is that he served his time. They should not be able to prohibit him from speaking about his experience and about computer security. Five years has not invalidated his knowledge since much of the technology has not changed all that much. It's been improved certainly, but his knowledge is still quite useful, especially in an industry that claims that there is a severe lack of skilled workers. He should have no problem finding a job once he's allowed to use computers again.
He knows (now) what he did was wrong... gee, five years in a federal prison to realize that?
I don't condone what he did, but I can't blame him for attempting to evade capture. When you consider that the companies involved were lying through their teeth about the damages (which they later retracted), the government was wanting to make an example out of him, which implies an overly harsh sentence, and the fact that he would be severely mistreated during his time in prison, I would do the same thing. There was no justice done here. It was a stunt pulled by the government. They wanted someone to crucify as an example. They threw justice out the window and used every trick they could come up with to try to destroy his life. Kevin is a criminal. What he did was wrong. The difference between him and the people who prosecuted him is that he was convicted for his crime and served his sentence. They seem to be above the law.
(Would you actually elect a convicted felon?)
Yes, actually. It would depend on the person, the crime, and whether I think he/she's a better person now. Considering that many candidates for major elections are unconvicted felons, I'd rather vote for the one that has served his time and recognizes the consequences of his actions rather than the one that appears to be above the law and has never been held accountable for his actions.
And it's everyone fault that a "dispropotionate number of black males" are convicted felons?
It's been shown that minorities are far more likely (something like 6 times) than non-minorities to be tried as adults, convicted, and sentenced to adult facilities. If the legal system is so skewed, and I believe it is, then it is certainly not right to further persecute these people after they've done their time.
Is the law descriminating against black males? No.
I think you're wrong about this.
Does this make it right to repeal the law so "more black people can vote"?
That's not the real reason the law should be repealed. It should never have been passed in the first place. If a person has served his time, he should not be considered a second or third class citizen, and certainly should not be prohibited from voting. That's one of the most fundamental rights in a democracy. They are effectively being excluded from the democratic process. They cannot effectively have a voice in opposing the government that convicted them, even though they don't agree with the laws they were accused of breaking. Drug laws are the most perfect example. The "war on drugs" has done more to take away our rights and more to divide the country into haves and have-nots than any other single policy. The rich can do drugs to their hearts content. They have good lawyers. The poor? Not a chance. They rot in prison for years for a petty offense. Zero tolerance policies, extreme punishments, persecution after the sentence has been served, removal of fundamental rights even after the sentence has been served, unequal treatment by courts depending on race and financial status. These are just some of the many unjustices that occur frequently in our "justice" system. They just keep getting worse too.
As far as I'm concerned, he did his time and should be free to talk about it now. They've already managed to take away any possibility of him getting a good job doing what he is best at. They should at least let him make money somehow. Not to mention that taking away his freedom to speak to others is just plain wrong. Looks like it's time to break out the "Free Kevin" stickers and signs again.
That much I know, but happy != corny, and neither does joyful. Most of us remember the song from the Flintstones, "...we'll have a gay old time." In that context, the British meaning of gay makes sense. Still doesn't shed any light on the earlier poster's use of the word though.
If they're getting a cut from every digital recording device sold in order to compensate for losses due to copyright infringement, why isn't it legal to distribute copies? After all, you're compensating them for it. That recording device tax is one of the shadier things I've heard of them doing. There's gotta be some way to invalidate it. It just seems completely illogical.
gay == corny ???
Learn something new every day I guess.
Oops, I meant to say one of its weakness when it comes to UNIX becoming mainstream as a desktop standard.
Even as far as becoming a mainstream standard, multiple window manager options is still not a weakness. Perhaps a lack of a consistent default interface could be considered a weakness (and is considered one by many), but having options available is never a weakness for an OS. I, personally, don't think that a lack of an official WM for Linux is a weakness. OEMs will figure out what their customers want and give it to them. If they want a wm that looks like Windows, then that's what they'll get. If they want something else, they can have that too. If the customer is a company and doesn't want multiple window managers on their machines, then the OEM will just make sure that only the wm that the customer selected is loaded. It really makes sense to handle things this way. It gives OEMs the maximum flexibility to serve their customers and to differentiate themselves, while at the same time, it gives customers a choice in how they will use their computers.
If it's done right, you could easily switch from that baffling UI to one that you understand and can use.
Different window manager are one of the weak points of unices, which is very much different from the lies you are trying to spread.
How is having options a weakness? People are free to use the wm that makes sense to them. There are some that look nearly exactly like Windows and use all the same terminology and metaphors. There are others that are very different and satisfy different types of users. There is no weakness in having options available. If I'm an OEM, then I'll use the wm that I think my users want. If they don't know what they want, then I'll ask them what OS they have experience with and I'll give them the wm that most closely matches that OS. If they have no experience, then maybe I'll give them the wm that is easiest to learn, or that is the most like Windows if Windows is still the dominant OS. The fact that there are options is not a weakness, it's one of the things that makes Linux better.
I think what is needed goes well beyond simple "themes." Entirely different kinds of interfaces should be possible. Simlar to switching from the GUI to the CLI on a Unix/Linux system. Each of these UIs may be themeable in some way or to some extent as well.
I don't think switching UIs is too advanced of a concept for people to grasp. Its like using a different tool for a task. If they are presented with an option, they will have the ability to decide which interface they like. As long as it is easy to switch between the different interfaces, there shouldn't be any real confusion. It will probably increase the complexity of support, but that can be dealt with. It's just another fork to take when the helpdesk people try to figure out what to do about your problem/question.
Actually, from what I understand, they can't release the code due to NDAs with other companies whose technology they use. Or something along those lines. Wonder if that'll change anytime soon. Prolly not.
But I still have yet to see a convincing argument for regulating open source itself,
This depends on what you mean by regulation. One of the things that's been discussed is making sure our government favors open source over closed source software. This really isn't a bad thing. Having complete and open access to the source, along with the ability to modify that source is something that makes OSS inherently more valuable than closed source software. It makes sense that the government should consider this a desired feature of the software it uses. It doesn't make sense to keep using software that sells for very high prices when there is free software that can do nearly everything that the commercial software does, and in some cases even more, with the added perqs of being free or very inexpensive as well as having the source available. Instead of government purchasers having to justify not purchasing a Microsoft product, they should really have to justify their choice to purchase an MS product over an open source product.
The money saved on licensing fees would be enormous. This money could be used for support costs (which they have with closed source products anyway), as well as for beefing up security (which is sorely lacking), probably with a fair amount left over.
That said, let me get to the more important reason. If we're going to keep moving forward with new ideas and new implementations, we need a foundation we can build on. Microsoft is not that foundation. We need software that is open and readily available to anyone that wants it. We need access to the code that is the foundation that new ideas will be built upon. It only makes sense that our government should promote this goal as best it can. OSS will not be the right choice in every situation, but it should be used in every situation in which it will suffice. The government needs to lead the way in implementing OSS as a foundation and a philosophy. Closed source has helped to challenge OSS and make it better, but closed source software is not a good foundation to lock ourselves into, simply because we, as a country, do not have any real control over it and it does not serve our interests first and foremost. OSS is available to us. It is inexpensive. It offers us vastly greater control and freedom. It is the sensible choice.
All I can say is "why?" Lessig gives no reason laws are needed, in fact he has nothing to say about the open source movement at all.
You should read Lessig's book, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. He gives very good reasons why regulation is needed. I think one of the most obvious reasons is that regulation always exists, regardless of what we may want. It's just a question of who is calling the shots. As he said, "'no regulation' is not on the table."
The internet was born with the help of regulation. It flourished with the help of regulation. The main danger to it now is the lack of (proper) regulation of new networks (cable, etc).
Lessig's point is that we need to make sure the government is implementing the right kinds of regulation in order to keep the Net open and available to all. If we don't wake up and start participating in the debate and making our voices heard in Washington, we'll continue to have the various industries calling the shots since they'll be the only ones talking to our government. We'll continue to end up with bad regulation like the DMCA and UCITA.
I wouldn't consider "free software" to be a code word. He's gone to great lengths to explain what he means when he uses that term. However, when you're writing about larger issues, it's just not sensible to insert the definition of free software into your writing when the term itself will suffice.
Yeah, and next we'll be tossing 8 year olds in jail. They should just grow up and be responsible for themselves! Just like that. All by themselves! If anything we've heard about this case is true, it sounds like the kids father is a lot more screwed up than he is. The kid should be punished, but not the way they seem to want to punish hackers these days. i.e. Lock 'em up and throw away the key. This is a kid. He deserves a chance to change. He isn't a violent criminal with no conscience. He's a kid that pulled a stupid prank. Yeah, it was a prank that caused a lot of commotion and probably caused some sites to lose some money, but I doubt the damage was anywhere near what they claim it was. They always blow hacking damages all out of proportion, usually be several orders of magnitude. Then they can never back up their claims. The kid should probably (at most) spend a month in juvie. Then they need to make sure he is taken care of. Sounds like his dad might not be around to do it.
I don't have a problem with people being held responsible for their actions, but there needs to be some perspective on things. Destroying a kids life because he made a stupid error in judgement is not the answer.
Every corp in existance will just register their name/trademark/whatever else they're known by under every TLD anyway. Just like they do now with .com, .net, and .org. We're just going to have an even bigger mess.
Even in cases where the driver was drunk, it is called an accident the whole while as the driver is on trial.
Actually drunk drivers are routinely convicted of vehicular manslaughter. The term "accident" is just a very deeply ingrained term when it comes to vehicles. If I was a legitmate gun owner and accidently shot someone while cleaning a gun, they don't call that an accident. Neither should it be called an accident when someone kills somebody after getting behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated. It should be called vehicular manslaughter at the very least, and murder 2 at the most.
People commit murder regardless of what weapon they have available. How many murders committed last year were not committed using a gun? I bet a large portion of the people who used a gun would have used another weapon had a gun not been available (although its hard to imagine someone not being able to get a gun if they want one, same as drugs). Even assuming you could get rid of guns (completely impossible IMO), I don't see the other problems in this country being fixed, so we'll still have the environment in which people will commit murder, simply because they either feel it's right in their situation, or they don't care at all. The way things are going, it's probably just going to get worse too.
The rest of your points are quite reasonable, though you'll usually have more luck outrunning a knife than a bullet.
If I'm defending my home or family, I'm not likely to be running. In other circumstances, running might be a wise idea. As the article I mentioned shows though (and you seem to agree), you're going to have a real tough time trying to get guns away from criminals. So, I'd just as soon not bring a knife to a gunfight.
Doesn't the record industry already collect a tax on recordable media to compensate for copyright infringement? Why the hell should we be sued when we're already being taxed? They need to decide whether copyright infringement is legal, and thus taxable, or illegal, and thus non-taxable. They should not be able to have it both ways!
Harmless fun nearly by definition. Quite unobjectionable on its own merits, although other methods to both hunt and fire projectiles at targets exist.
Other methods of transportation exist, yet we do not ban automobiles, despite the fact that they kill tens of thousands of people every year. The point is that while other methods are available, they are not equivalent. We use the method that works best for us.
In both England and Japan, effective policing takes place without arms, but then, the people are not armed either.
Wrong. England is currently having a seriou s gun problem. Guns are still coming into the country despite the ban. Why? Because people still want them, and other people can make money off of them. Criminals still get all the guns they want. They are having problems with gangs toting around automatics. The police still use guns as well (note the picture in that article). Not all of them carry a gun all the time, but they definitely still keep them handy. I haven't read anything about Japan's situation, so I can't comment on that.
Multiple armed home invaders aren't going to be very amused by resistance.
Actually, resistance is usually enough to send them packing. They are there for the quick, easy score. They don't want to die over it.
At least with knifes, the chances are that they'll only wound one another.
Sorry, but as you pointed out, some people are bigger and stronger than others. I have no intention of engaging in a knife fight with someone. A gun is much more effective. Even a warning shot will often make an intruder run rather than take his chances against someone with a gun. The odds are way too even, and possibly even against him. If I am competent in the use of my gun, then I am unlikely to be disarmed or have it used against me. I think the real thing that gives guns a bad name is that people don't learn how to handle them. They think it's just like on tv, you point and shoot and bad guys start dropping. I personally think you should have to pass a test to own a gun, just like you do in order to drive a car. There are just too many incompetent gun owners. But, until there are non-lethal weapons available to the public that are at least as effective in any given situation as a gun, I believe we all have the right to defend ourselves and our families to the best of our ability and with the most effective weapon available to us.
I think it highly unlikely that either one of us can convert the other to the opposite way of thinking, but if you'd like to continue the discussion, I am quite happy to.
You're probably right, but naturally I couldn't let your post go unanswered. You understand, of course. :)
Actually, it hasn't been ruled illegal yet. If it were already illegal, the court wouldn't even have to decide that point, it would just have to determine whether or not the defendants posessed or distributed it. They already admit to that, but they deny that DeCSS is illegal. There are provisions in the DMCA for reverse engineering for compatibility reasons, which is what DeCSS was for. That will be a large part of their defense. Until this case is decided, we won't know whether DeCSS is illegal or not.
Are the manufacturers responsible when the product's primary use is illegal and they make no bones about it? Yes.
The primary use of guns is not illegal. The primary use is for law enforcement, self-defense, and sport. There are illegal uses as well, such as armed robbery, assault, and murder. These are all illegal and anyone committing such a crime should certainly be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It does not mean that the rest of us should lose the right to effectively defend ourselves, our families, and our homes.
I don't believe that such a list would really work, but it is certainly an example of the measures which were open to them.
I don't know of any measures that could effectively prevent the transfer of copyrighted works. What it comes down to is a bunch of unidentifiable bits. Don't know of any way to filter those.
The interesting thing is that apparently the RIAA has said that they aren't going to go after users. C'est la vie.
Yep. They have no interest in pursuing those who are actually infringing on their copyright. They are looking for a quick fix that will end up setting a bad precedent that they will use to remove even more of our rights in the future. This is almost exactly the same thing the MPAA is doing with DeCSS.
On the other hand, these guns wouldn't be there without the manufacturers and they are therefore indirectly responsible.
The gunmakers are selling a legitimate product. It, like many other products, can be used for illegal purposes. That does not mean that the company is even indirectly responsible for those actions. People never go after knife makers when someone is stabbed to death. Why go after gun makers? If you go after gun makers, why not automobile makers? All you end up doing is trying to shift the responsibility to someone else, even though they were selling a perfectly legitimate product.
The lawsuits against gunmakers on deaths should be thrown out of court.
Couldn't agree more with this, although I don't think I agree with your overall stance on guns.
(Likewise with smoking. Can't smokers read warning labels that first said smoking is harmful, later that smoking kills?)
For anyone who started in the last 20 years, and barring any unusual circumstances, I think I agree with you. However, I also think that the cigarette companies did conspire to hide the facts from consumers about the harm that smoking causes, as well as the fact that it is highly addictive. It's not just a matter of saying "oh, I'd better quit" after you realize that smoking will quite probably kill you. For these reasons, I think that many of the people who are filing suits against the cigarette companies have a legitimate grievance.
DeCSS is not illegal. Only certain specific sites have been prohibited from distributing it due to the MPAA having obtained a preliminary injunction against them. Any site that has not been hit with such an injunction is legally allowed to distribute DeCSS.
People in the patent office trying to apply it to individual patent applications must be so perplexed that they are easily swayed by factors other than the law.
I think that's what I'm getting at. The people in the patent office aren't qualified to be making the decisions they're making. An expert in the field is the only one who can make the call on whether something is obvious or not. There are probably damn few experts in any field employed by the patent office. They can usually get better jobs elsewhere.