Were you aware that a significant amount of content was cut from Chrono Trigger? Including at least one dungeon? A beta ROM that had been distributed to magazines before the original SNES release leaked to the Internet a few years back. In it was accessible this extra dungeon; it was removed from the game before release. Many other threads were left hanging. The game's ROM was crammed full to capacity. Coincidence?
If it really is as blatant as this, then this is a trivial problem to correct. Put one of those prerecorded messages on your phone saying "To ensure quality, conversations may be monitored or recorded". Next time a Yelp employee tries to shake you down, record them. Post it on your store's website and make a YouTube clip of the audio. When Yelp attempts to force the message to be removed... Behold, the Power of Streisand.
This is a subtle misunderstanding of the purpose of a warrant. There are large swathes of information that police don't need search warrants to obtain. The purpose of a search warrant is to give police the power to search a particular thing by force - that is, over the objection of someone who wants the information to remain secret. Cops don't need search warrants in any other instance. They don't need a warrant for stuff that happens right in front of them, and cops don't need a warrant to ask witnesses questions.
If the witness proves uncooperative, then the police need a warrant (which only permits them to search whether the subject wants to submit or not). There are very few situations where the police need to get a warrant even though someone wants to tell them something. But that's not what happened here. The police asked the ISP to tell them which subscriber had IP 127.0.0.1, and the ISP chose to disclose the information. Perhaps the response from the ISP should have been "I'm sorry, I need to see a warrant" -- but that doesn't mean it gets excluded from the trial. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
There is also Supreme Court precedent (which I sadly could not locate) which says that "envelope information" can be obtained from a service provider without a warrant, but the content of any message requires a warrant to obtain from the provider. Envelope information is date, time, from whom, and to where. In this case, the IP address is more properly classified as "envelope data". The Supreme Court said that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the communication itself, but that one must necessarily disclose that you are making the communication to the provider, so that the provider can connect you. (I personally disagree with this analysis, but it is controlling law.)
Stupid? I guess that depends on perspective. If you're so inclined, it sounds like a great way to get invited to some... let's call them "awesome"... parties to me.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders ...
on
You Are Not a Lawyer
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Smart people make mistakes too. More often in areas where they lack expertise. Even though in an abstract way you know all these things, in practice, they elude many people who really ought to know better. Just ask Hans Reiser how well his cunning plan worked out in practice.
Exactly the same logic can be used trivially to prove some rather silly things. For example: The accessibility of murder and other violence in jail kind of shines a spotlight on the stupidity of the war on the mob.
Your point isn't necessarily wrong, but the argument does not help. Society has attempted to crack down on many many things over its long history. Many times successfully, often not. Many times legitimately, often not. An attack on the effectiveness of a campaign does not always imply the campaign was a stupid idea; indeed, 100% effectiveness is basically impossible no matter what you're trying to control.
To simply point out "see, failures exist! The policy isn't foolproof!" adds nothing. This was already known. The real debate is whether the activity is even legitimate at all and whether the price to implement the policy is worth it. The crackdown on slavery, for example, was long, bloody, and virtually ineffectual for a very long time. So was the crackdown on alcohol. One was a stupid idea, the other wasn't.
Wanting Bush hung for treason is totally biased. Treason is explicitly defined by the Constitution which you hypocritically claim you want to hang him for violating: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Bush has not levied War against the United States, nor has he made common cause with our enemies. Therefore he is not guilty of treason. He is most likely guilty of a host of other crimes, and of myriad unconstitutional acts, the sum total of which clearly would have warranted impeachment (too late now) and his probable removal by the Senate (if the trial was judicial and not political, which woujld have never happened). On top of that, criminal prosecution would also be warranted.
Deploring the fact that none of this will ever happen is one thing; but Treason is the only crime expressly delineated in the Constitution, and it is that way for a very good reason: the English practice in times past of using treason as a conveniently ill-defined way to legally murder people who were too good at opposing you. Bush has done nothing to meet the definition which was specifically adopted to prevent politically sanctioned assassination -- therefore he is not (strictly speaking) a traitor.
As a consumer, why the staff does particular things is irrelevant; they still do them, don't they? Peculiar sales practices can be the fault of bad salespeople, or bad management. But it doesn't matter why. A bad sales practice is a bad sales practice. On a personal level, I can sympathise with good people being hamstrung by bad rules; but that isn't going to get me to smile, bend over, and spread my wallet.
But surely hiring people who are dishonest, but not stupid, just means they'll be better at ripping you off? Seems to me this is how things like Madoff happen.
If you're allowed to include all other games in the franchise, I think Guitar Hero gets quite handily beaten by any number of long-running megahit series.
Either there is such a thing as a thoughtcrime, or there isn't. And if there IS such a thing as thoughtcrime, surely it extends beyond child porn. The actual number of victims of sex offenders dwarfs in comparison to the sheer magnitude of harm committed by racists and other hate groups.
But why stop there? After all, if you're anti-abortion, then abortion advocates promote an idea that kills people by the thousands (tens of thousands?) every year. And if you're pro-abortion, then abortion opponents cause untold harm by forcing people to have huge numbers of unwanted children, which demonstrably has negative effects on society.
Where does it stop? I say at the very beginning. There is no such thing as a thoughtcrime.
(Note: I am not arguing in favor of real child porn; that isn't thoughtcrime at all, since it's based on real-world acts with horrifying consequences.)
Certainly there should be more expirements of politicians (especially the guys not on my team, I never liked them), but come on, Bush's term ends in like three weeks. There's no use starting a war over spilt oil...
Someone did pretty much just this (provoke a borderline case), except he was actually trying to win (as basically a kind of extortion racket). He created a website, put content on it, waited for Google to index it, then sued for copyright infringement when they did. Unfortunately, I can't remember his name.
In court, when questioned, he readily admitted he knew about robots.txt, knew what it did, and knew how to use it. He said he deliberately did not set it up, because he didn't have to and if Google wanted to avoid infringement, they shouldn't have indexed his site.
The judge said this amounted to something like entrapment, and they basically threw the case out. If you have a beef with someone, and you deliberately don't try to fix it, because you'll get more from the lawsuit, then the courts can and will penalize you. It's called 'failure to mitigate'.
What happens if she writes the words out, e.g. three eight eight four? Ever tried using non-arabic numerals? (The Japanese characters for 0-9, for example.)
Slashdot Mirror
When your mom yells down to take the trash out, what did you think she meant? On second thought, don't answer that question ...
Were you aware that a significant amount of content was cut from Chrono Trigger? Including at least one dungeon? A beta ROM that had been distributed to magazines before the original SNES release leaked to the Internet a few years back. In it was accessible this extra dungeon; it was removed from the game before release. Many other threads were left hanging. The game's ROM was crammed full to capacity. Coincidence?
If it really is as blatant as this, then this is a trivial problem to correct. Put one of those prerecorded messages on your phone saying "To ensure quality, conversations may be monitored or recorded". Next time a Yelp employee tries to shake you down, record them. Post it on your store's website and make a YouTube clip of the audio. When Yelp attempts to force the message to be removed ... Behold, the Power of Streisand.
This is a subtle misunderstanding of the purpose of a warrant. There are large swathes of information that police don't need search warrants to obtain. The purpose of a search warrant is to give police the power to search a particular thing by force - that is, over the objection of someone who wants the information to remain secret. Cops don't need search warrants in any other instance. They don't need a warrant for stuff that happens right in front of them, and cops don't need a warrant to ask witnesses questions.
If the witness proves uncooperative, then the police need a warrant (which only permits them to search whether the subject wants to submit or not). There are very few situations where the police need to get a warrant even though someone wants to tell them something. But that's not what happened here. The police asked the ISP to tell them which subscriber had IP 127.0.0.1, and the ISP chose to disclose the information. Perhaps the response from the ISP should have been "I'm sorry, I need to see a warrant" -- but that doesn't mean it gets excluded from the trial. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.
There is also Supreme Court precedent (which I sadly could not locate) which says that "envelope information" can be obtained from a service provider without a warrant, but the content of any message requires a warrant to obtain from the provider. Envelope information is date, time, from whom, and to where. In this case, the IP address is more properly classified as "envelope data". The Supreme Court said that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the communication itself, but that one must necessarily disclose that you are making the communication to the provider, so that the provider can connect you. (I personally disagree with this analysis, but it is controlling law.)
Stupid? I guess that depends on perspective. If you're so inclined, it sounds like a great way to get invited to some ... let's call them "awesome" ... parties to me.
Smart people make mistakes too. More often in areas where they lack expertise. Even though in an abstract way you know all these things, in practice, they elude many people who really ought to know better. Just ask Hans Reiser how well his cunning plan worked out in practice.
> moron without the o = morn
You must be one of those mrns I hear on TV all the time.
Exactly the same logic can be used trivially to prove some rather silly things. For example: The accessibility of murder and other violence in jail kind of shines a spotlight on the stupidity of the war on the mob.
Your point isn't necessarily wrong, but the argument does not help. Society has attempted to crack down on many many things over its long history. Many times successfully, often not. Many times legitimately, often not. An attack on the effectiveness of a campaign does not always imply the campaign was a stupid idea; indeed, 100% effectiveness is basically impossible no matter what you're trying to control.
To simply point out "see, failures exist! The policy isn't foolproof!" adds nothing. This was already known. The real debate is whether the activity is even legitimate at all and whether the price to implement the policy is worth it. The crackdown on slavery, for example, was long, bloody, and virtually ineffectual for a very long time. So was the crackdown on alcohol. One was a stupid idea, the other wasn't.
That's why you have to make sure you never get behind in your Old Glory payments. You need those prescriptions!
Just don't try to fsck the partition. That would be ... awkward.
Wanting Bush hung for treason is totally biased. Treason is explicitly defined by the Constitution which you hypocritically claim you want to hang him for violating: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Bush has not levied War against the United States, nor has he made common cause with our enemies. Therefore he is not guilty of treason. He is most likely guilty of a host of other crimes, and of myriad unconstitutional acts, the sum total of which clearly would have warranted impeachment (too late now) and his probable removal by the Senate (if the trial was judicial and not political, which woujld have never happened). On top of that, criminal prosecution would also be warranted.
Deploring the fact that none of this will ever happen is one thing; but Treason is the only crime expressly delineated in the Constitution, and it is that way for a very good reason: the English practice in times past of using treason as a conveniently ill-defined way to legally murder people who were too good at opposing you. Bush has done nothing to meet the definition which was specifically adopted to prevent politically sanctioned assassination -- therefore he is not (strictly speaking) a traitor.
I'm probably on the tail end of their popularity; I'm not even 30. As for proof I played it, check my nick.
As a consumer, why the staff does particular things is irrelevant; they still do them, don't they? Peculiar sales practices can be the fault of bad salespeople, or bad management. But it doesn't matter why. A bad sales practice is a bad sales practice. On a personal level, I can sympathise with good people being hamstrung by bad rules; but that isn't going to get me to smile, bend over, and spread my wallet.
But surely hiring people who are dishonest, but not stupid, just means they'll be better at ripping you off? Seems to me this is how things like Madoff happen.
If you're allowed to include all other games in the franchise, I think Guitar Hero gets quite handily beaten by any number of long-running megahit series.
Absolutely.
Either there is such a thing as a thoughtcrime, or there isn't. And if there IS such a thing as thoughtcrime, surely it extends beyond child porn. The actual number of victims of sex offenders dwarfs in comparison to the sheer magnitude of harm committed by racists and other hate groups.
But why stop there? After all, if you're anti-abortion, then abortion advocates promote an idea that kills people by the thousands (tens of thousands?) every year. And if you're pro-abortion, then abortion opponents cause untold harm by forcing people to have huge numbers of unwanted children, which demonstrably has negative effects on society.
Where does it stop? I say at the very beginning. There is no such thing as a thoughtcrime.
(Note: I am not arguing in favor of real child porn; that isn't thoughtcrime at all, since it's based on real-world acts with horrifying consequences.)
I knew you were going to say that. Of course it's real. Enron was a real company, too. Didn't mean it was worth anything ...
As long as you don't give it to any alien nationals you should probably be alright.
That's still a leg up on some companies like Google that can't seem to find their way past Beta ...
Certainly there should be more expirements of politicians (especially the guys not on my team, I never liked them), but come on, Bush's term ends in like three weeks. There's no use starting a war over spilt oil ...
I am intrigued by your ideas, and wish to surrepetitiously sign up people to your mailing list.
Someone did pretty much just this (provoke a borderline case), except he was actually trying to win (as basically a kind of extortion racket). He created a website, put content on it, waited for Google to index it, then sued for copyright infringement when they did. Unfortunately, I can't remember his name.
In court, when questioned, he readily admitted he knew about robots.txt, knew what it did, and knew how to use it. He said he deliberately did not set it up, because he didn't have to and if Google wanted to avoid infringement, they shouldn't have indexed his site.
The judge said this amounted to something like entrapment, and they basically threw the case out. If you have a beef with someone, and you deliberately don't try to fix it, because you'll get more from the lawsuit, then the courts can and will penalize you. It's called 'failure to mitigate'.
What happens if she writes the words out, e.g. three eight eight four? Ever tried using non-arabic numerals? (The Japanese characters for 0-9, for example.)
No matter how many times you kill it, it just won't die. I refuse to accept that this is the Great Will of the Universe!