"The court's ruling makes clear the legal rights given to al Qaida members today should exceed those provided to the Nazis during World War II," Graham said. "Our nation is at war. It's truly unfortunate the Supreme Court did not recognize and appreciate that fact."
Of course, in WWII, Congress had declared war. The rules may be different in times of war, but, fortunately, our legal system does not recognize laws against concepts/behaviors/tactics.
Strange how the U.S. Soldiers have fewer rights then the terrorists we are fighting.
Is that a "totalitarianism in the US" post; if so, this ruling is great for returning to a rule of law. Is that a "why are soldiers forced to go far away and die" post; if so, because that's what soldiers agree can happen, and the political will of the country, rightly or wrongly, sent them to fight. Is that a "terrorists deserve no rights, scumbags" post; if so, I would point out that these are accused terrorists. There have been failures in identifying them. Just like an innocent man going to jail is bad both for that man, and also because a criminal remains on the streets, locking up phoney terrorists gives us a misleading view of the world. Plus, who knows what the standard of proof is.
Or, if you chose to think that they just forgot about the second suit, they're clearly so fucking incompetent that they deserve disbarment anyway.
The trick is to make you think, but not conviced of either. For instance, there is a standard of proof X for being disbarred for evil. There is some standard of proof Y (which may be equal to X) for being disbarred for ineptitude. However, as long as there is a A (A<X) chance that they did what they did for evil reasons, and a B (B<Y) chance that they did what they did for inept reasons, they cannot be disbarred. I do wish we could disbar them give A+B > __max ( X, Y ) (that is, they are either evil or inept, but meet the more difficult bar for disbarment.) But that stops working if the punishments are different in addition to the standards of proof.
Or, if you chose to think that they just forgot about the second suit, they're clearly so fucking incompetent that they deserve disbarment anyway.
The trick is to make you think, but not conviced of either. For instance, there is a standard of proof X for being disbarred for evil. There is some standard of proof Y (which may be equal to X) for being disbarred for ineptitude. However, as long as there is a A (A __max ( X, Y ) (that is, they are either evil or inept, but meet the more difficult bar for disbarment.) But that stops working if the punishments are different in addition to the standards of proof.
Money on the other hand deals with material objects, not subjective reality and is objectively real and measurable.
Unless you are a brain in a jar. While I grant that it is more difficult to measure emotional damage than financial damage, in the abstract, this emotional damage led to suicide, which is monetizable.
And you again contend that the outcome is what causes the difference between a crime and not a crime. If I lose money via a bad investment, that outcome alone does not make it a crime or not a crime. If the investment was portrayed in an underhanded way, then it was a crime; if it was portrayed in an aboveboard way, then it was not. Why would this not apply to emotional damage, just because it is more difficult to measure? The difference still applies to the process, not the outcome.
So when you say individual x hurt individual y's feelings, how could individual x hurt individual y when there is no way for individual x to know what individual y feels?
Patently disingenuous. Of course X can hurt Y without even knowing of Y's existence. And of course one can predict to some degree what would be considered insulting and emotionally painful.
Um, all you demonstarted was that copy-protection works. It thwarted causal piracy. Why didn't her sun take the one copy to her ex-husband's house? No doubt so that someone else could play at her house. And that is the causal piracy that copy-protection prevents that keeps it in vogue.
ou can still make ISOs and throw them around, but they're unusable unless a cracked executable is available to bypass Securom / Safedisc etc.
Yes, current copy protection does that. But modern copy protection is hardly "uncrackable". I'd assume that a truely uncrackable copy protection would require information that is not available as "raw bits flying over the interweb"
. If one wants justice or even just to get something done in a -stan country then one has to grease the wheels of the local economy or in other words its pay (more than your opponent) to play.
I would think the US government, or most western European countries, could put enough pressure on a -stan country to get them to turn over a single, unimportant, individual.
If it were made into a crime do you realize I could sue you just because I don't like what you wrote on Slashdot?
You've conflated the end result (someone's feelings being hurt) and the cause (a complex series of lies.) While I don't believe the end result should be made illegal, it is the motivating factor to eliminate the cause (lying).
And I don't think lying should be made into a crime either.
Why is it a crime in financial matters then? What's the difference?
Well, I know that several large storms have recently collided. This is churning the atmosphere, and the storms are undergoing some chemical change. That's all I know about it, really.
Even the mos[t] moral guys have pirated an album or two because [t]hey weren't able to buy it or just really wanted it.
When I think of the "most moral" people I know, I always remind myself that their beliefs are malliable if something is unaffordable or the "really really" want to violate them.
Whatever you think of the morality of downloading, certainly expousing convictions you cannot follow is inferior to openly, non-hypocritically, violating someone else's convictions.
while the warming of Jupiter can be explained by increases in solar output, the warming of Earth can not.
If I recall correctly, Jupiter produces far more heat than it absorbs from the sun, and any increase in heat is more likely to be due to an increased period of activity on Jupiter rather than the Sun.
And DOS attacks and identity theft are real crime with real financial consequences.
It's not an emotion crime or thought crime.
You've mastered assertion. How is pretending to be someone you are not different in these two cases? In either way, you are causing people to make poor decisions based on intentionally faulty information. If the difference is "financial consequences" then you cede that all that is necesary is that the suicide be monitized. Fortunately, it is possible to assign a value to a human life (although the methodology is well-known, there are many variables I don't have access to, so I cannot provide a figure). Hence, all three have real financial consequences.
Fox reports science news just as well as other TV outlets.
Forgive my modification to your quote, but I think that print offers better coverage of science issues. And while Fox News may report science news as well as CNN does, an astrologer reports as much science as either one of them as well. Fox News is crap. If other TV channels are also crap, well, good job my friend, you're still watching crap.
Um, wouldn't the actual SEARCH be a search as well?
Yes. Reasonable searches does not equate to a boolean. Search warrents, for instance, typically detail both the scope of what is being sought, and where the officers can search. Hence, while it may be considered reasonable to search you for weapons/explosives, it could still be unreasonable to search you for ID. (An intermediate concern is what turns up natrually as a side effect of the search for weapons. But unless they have reasons to suspect weapons inside your wallet, it is a moot point for now.) They also cannot search your home just because you want to fly.
Now, as much as you want to restrict the scope of the argument, this brings in how necessary there is a need to control who flies on a plane. Although I can see many reasons not to want some people to fly, I can think of no reasons that relate to security, except for maybe martial arts masters. But that's not of whom the no-fly list consists. What need is there?
Lastly, I would, for the sake of completeness, just state that the same is begining to apply at Amtrak and bus terminals. Thus, all commercial transit, as well as the ability to negotiate public highways and roads, is regulated by some ID requirement. I would think this violates your right to travel. After all, to claim that the method of travel not being mentioned implies walking as a fallback, is analogous to implying that because freedom of speech doesn't specify how, it applies only if you speak in a whisper... or Swahili.
True, and I can be asked who I am. However, viewing an ID is a search.
the whole passport system is unconstitutional.
Immigration contol reasonable requires this search.
. The whole drivers license thing is unconstitutional.
The excuse is that driving is not a right. Some states take fingerprints and other biometric informaiton under this premise before issuing a license. I tend to disagree with that argument however.
The whole library card system is unconstitutional
Huh, I don't get this...
The whole fishing license
There is a need to control who fishes to maintain a proper balance of fishing and conservation.
See where I'm going with the this? If the Fourth applies to ID here, then it has to apply EVERYWHERE!... I think it has something to do with the fact that you wanting to travel makes it reasonable.
Travel, including interstate travel, is a constitutionally protected right. Fishing is not. Library use may or may not (I dunno). Driving is not (but I disagree with this). Entering the country through immigration is not.
This can happen in the corporate world, too: feeling the need to spend one's entire budget just so that it won't get cut in the following year. But at least there's likely to be someone who might find and correct that inefficiency.
Who? After all, those people who might find and correct it are probably the ones in charge of the department with the problems (or in charge of those who are in charge, etc.) Which means shrinking their budget. At some level you might be able to shift your savings to a different subdepartment, and the CEO certainly is aligned. But that's at the very top of the heap.
And that is only one area of corporate price insensitivity.
If one game is deemed "uncrackable", the warez kiddie will simply find some other game to play. You didn't make a penny more.
Alternatively, if one game is deemed "uncrackable", tens of thousands of versions ship to people who enjoy cracking games. And in the meantime, you license the shit out of the technology.
I challenge this. What's the meanest thing that ever happened to you? What happened to this girl is that she was wooed by someone who then was as cruel as possible to her. I don't know if anyone that mean has ever happened to me. I doubt it happened to other people either.
I don't think we should have virtual crimes. I don't agree with thought control laws... but if it's just words, to sue someone for mere words is a form of thought control.
This isn't thought control. You can still think mean thoughts. You can still say them to your friends. Would "virtual stalking" be more to your liking? I mean, there are already libel laws, there are already fraud laws, so many other laws that only come into play based on "words". Hell, there are torts to deal with breech of contract which is yet more "words."
As for virtual crimes, what about identity theft? What about DDOS attacks? What about script kiddies who make tons of malware? What about people who control giant botnets?
Suicide over breakups are always going to happen.
And?
Someone could commit suicide when you break up with them, should you get sued for it?
I believe the proper tort would be "intentional infliction of emotional distress."
If someone wants to commit suicide they are going to do it and it has nothing to do with who they date or what words are said to them.
That's illogical. You admitted scant lines above that people do commit suicide based on breakups, hence "who they date". And of course their environment is going to have an effect.
Next we will be able to sue white racists for hosting hate sites which cause non-white readers to commit suicide after reading the site.
No, rasicts who hound non-whites in various ways, including online, should get arrested. You're hung up on this "suicide" aspect. The law isn't constrained to that.
Do you see where this could lead? It's going to be applied to EVERY situation because it's an irrational law.
Extreme cases make for bad law. They also make for bad software architecture. It's hard to take into account the most common and the most repugnent.
Pretty much. However, a console's copy-protection serves to make it just as hard for someone to write new software as to copy old. In theory, those two don't have to go together. You could also allow far more modding than is possible on a console, content creation/sharing (lock down executables, not content). But yeah, halfway between a console and a computer.
So you have problems with any copy protection, as long as it exclusively relies on "trust". Because of course copy-protection must raise hassels. There is some method of verifying you can run the software, and such methods can never be 100% accurate (there are lemons/shorts/ruination/reformats/internet outages/etc).
The only other alternative would be a locked down OS (far moreso than Vista) with some sort of anti-modding hardware and a hypervisor. Even that would only mostly work, but it would work well enough to eliminate any other inconviences.
Slashdot Mirror
That seems to be a common lag for civil rights protections to kick in.
That does concern me as well. However, at least the majority was said to be strongly worded: "Liberty and security can be reconciled"
FTFA:
Of course, in WWII, Congress had declared war. The rules may be different in times of war, but, fortunately, our legal system does not recognize laws against concepts/behaviors/tactics.
Is that a "totalitarianism in the US" post; if so, this ruling is great for returning to a rule of law. Is that a "why are soldiers forced to go far away and die" post; if so, because that's what soldiers agree can happen, and the political will of the country, rightly or wrongly, sent them to fight. Is that a "terrorists deserve no rights, scumbags" post; if so, I would point out that these are accused terrorists. There have been failures in identifying them. Just like an innocent man going to jail is bad both for that man, and also because a criminal remains on the streets, locking up phoney terrorists gives us a misleading view of the world. Plus, who knows what the standard of proof is.
Sorry, gt/lt characters
The trick is to make you think, but not conviced of either. For instance, there is a standard of proof X for being disbarred for evil. There is some standard of proof Y (which may be equal to X) for being disbarred for ineptitude. However, as long as there is a A (A<X) chance that they did what they did for evil reasons, and a B (B<Y) chance that they did what they did for inept reasons, they cannot be disbarred. I do wish we could disbar them give A+B > __max ( X, Y ) (that is, they are either evil or inept, but meet the more difficult bar for disbarment.) But that stops working if the punishments are different in addition to the standards of proof.
The trick is to make you think, but not conviced of either. For instance, there is a standard of proof X for being disbarred for evil. There is some standard of proof Y (which may be equal to X) for being disbarred for ineptitude. However, as long as there is a A (A __max ( X, Y ) (that is, they are either evil or inept, but meet the more difficult bar for disbarment.) But that stops working if the punishments are different in addition to the standards of proof.
Unless you are a brain in a jar. While I grant that it is more difficult to measure emotional damage than financial damage, in the abstract, this emotional damage led to suicide, which is monetizable.
And you again contend that the outcome is what causes the difference between a crime and not a crime. If I lose money via a bad investment, that outcome alone does not make it a crime or not a crime. If the investment was portrayed in an underhanded way, then it was a crime; if it was portrayed in an aboveboard way, then it was not. Why would this not apply to emotional damage, just because it is more difficult to measure? The difference still applies to the process, not the outcome.
Patently disingenuous. Of course X can hurt Y without even knowing of Y's existence. And of course one can predict to some degree what would be considered insulting and emotionally painful.
Um, all you demonstarted was that copy-protection works. It thwarted causal piracy. Why didn't her sun take the one copy to her ex-husband's house? No doubt so that someone else could play at her house. And that is the causal piracy that copy-protection prevents that keeps it in vogue.
Yes, current copy protection does that. But modern copy protection is hardly "uncrackable". I'd assume that a truely uncrackable copy protection would require information that is not available as "raw bits flying over the interweb"
I would think the US government, or most western European countries, could put enough pressure on a -stan country to get them to turn over a single, unimportant, individual.
You've conflated the end result (someone's feelings being hurt) and the cause (a complex series of lies.) While I don't believe the end result should be made illegal, it is the motivating factor to eliminate the cause (lying).
Why is it a crime in financial matters then? What's the difference?
Well, I know that several large storms have recently collided. This is churning the atmosphere, and the storms are undergoing some chemical change. That's all I know about it, really.
When I think of the "most moral" people I know, I always remind myself that their beliefs are malliable if something is unaffordable or the "really really" want to violate them.
Whatever you think of the morality of downloading, certainly expousing convictions you cannot follow is inferior to openly, non-hypocritically, violating someone else's convictions.
If I recall correctly, Jupiter produces far more heat than it absorbs from the sun, and any increase in heat is more likely to be due to an increased period of activity on Jupiter rather than the Sun.
Forgive my modification to your quote, but I think that print offers better coverage of science issues. And while Fox News may report science news as well as CNN does, an astrologer reports as much science as either one of them as well. Fox News is crap. If other TV channels are also crap, well, good job my friend, you're still watching crap.
If your game can be cracked by just a download of an image off the internet, then you didn't really have uncrackable copy protection, then did you?
Yes. Reasonable searches does not equate to a boolean. Search warrents, for instance, typically detail both the scope of what is being sought, and where the officers can search. Hence, while it may be considered reasonable to search you for weapons/explosives, it could still be unreasonable to search you for ID. (An intermediate concern is what turns up natrually as a side effect of the search for weapons. But unless they have reasons to suspect weapons inside your wallet, it is a moot point for now.) They also cannot search your home just because you want to fly.
Now, as much as you want to restrict the scope of the argument, this brings in how necessary there is a need to control who flies on a plane. Although I can see many reasons not to want some people to fly, I can think of no reasons that relate to security, except for maybe martial arts masters. But that's not of whom the no-fly list consists. What need is there?
Lastly, I would, for the sake of completeness, just state that the same is begining to apply at Amtrak and bus terminals. Thus, all commercial transit, as well as the ability to negotiate public highways and roads, is regulated by some ID requirement. I would think this violates your right to travel. After all, to claim that the method of travel not being mentioned implies walking as a fallback, is analogous to implying that because freedom of speech doesn't specify how, it applies only if you speak in a whisper... or Swahili.
True, and I can be asked who I am. However, viewing an ID is a search.
Immigration contol reasonable requires this search.
The excuse is that driving is not a right. Some states take fingerprints and other biometric informaiton under this premise before issuing a license. I tend to disagree with that argument however.
Huh, I don't get this...
There is a need to control who fishes to maintain a proper balance of fishing and conservation.
Travel, including interstate travel, is a constitutionally protected right. Fishing is not. Library use may or may not (I dunno). Driving is not (but I disagree with this). Entering the country through immigration is not.
The intended units were megapascals.
Who? After all, those people who might find and correct it are probably the ones in charge of the department with the problems (or in charge of those who are in charge, etc.) Which means shrinking their budget. At some level you might be able to shift your savings to a different subdepartment, and the CEO certainly is aligned. But that's at the very top of the heap.
And that is only one area of corporate price insensitivity.
Alternatively, if one game is deemed "uncrackable", tens of thousands of versions ship to people who enjoy cracking games. And in the meantime, you license the shit out of the technology.
I challenge this. What's the meanest thing that ever happened to you? What happened to this girl is that she was wooed by someone who then was as cruel as possible to her. I don't know if anyone that mean has ever happened to me. I doubt it happened to other people either.
This isn't thought control. You can still think mean thoughts. You can still say them to your friends. Would "virtual stalking" be more to your liking? I mean, there are already libel laws, there are already fraud laws, so many other laws that only come into play based on "words". Hell, there are torts to deal with breech of contract which is yet more "words."
As for virtual crimes, what about identity theft? What about DDOS attacks? What about script kiddies who make tons of malware? What about people who control giant botnets?
And?
I believe the proper tort would be "intentional infliction of emotional distress."
That's illogical. You admitted scant lines above that people do commit suicide based on breakups, hence "who they date". And of course their environment is going to have an effect.
No, rasicts who hound non-whites in various ways, including online, should get arrested. You're hung up on this "suicide" aspect. The law isn't constrained to that.
Extreme cases make for bad law. They also make for bad software architecture. It's hard to take into account the most common and the most repugnent.
Or ads for HD TVs that get broadcast in SD.
Pretty much. However, a console's copy-protection serves to make it just as hard for someone to write new software as to copy old. In theory, those two don't have to go together. You could also allow far more modding than is possible on a console, content creation/sharing (lock down executables, not content). But yeah, halfway between a console and a computer.
So you have problems with any copy protection, as long as it exclusively relies on "trust". Because of course copy-protection must raise hassels. There is some method of verifying you can run the software, and such methods can never be 100% accurate (there are lemons/shorts/ruination/reformats/internet outages/etc).
The only other alternative would be a locked down OS (far moreso than Vista) with some sort of anti-modding hardware and a hypervisor. Even that would only mostly work, but it would work well enough to eliminate any other inconviences.