I don't always have the internet with me, in a form convenient for viewing xkcd or anything similar (my phone can only do so much). That, and turning pages and reading is faster than mindless clicking a next button that's never in quite the same spot. And, again, the bit of revenue to the author as a thanks for doing something they get very little for--blame me for being a blatant capitalist.
I'm not a big fan of actually buying books--my tax money, to some degree, goes to finance my public library (and free library card), so I usually just check out books that I want--but I think this is one I might actually buy. If a Questionable Content compilation would come available at some later point, I'd probably buy it too. I'd venture to guess that webcomics are low-reward thingers, and those out there that are enjoyable, well, the creators should be able to get something out of it.
You'd be amazed at the amount of incompetency that runs rampant in the world. 20-something college graduates who don't understand basic questions like, 'what's the area code of your phone number', instead giving you their fucking ZIP CODE. I'm pretty sure my child understands the difference, and she's barely old enough to piece together a sentence of more than 3 words. Look around your average shopping mall, you'll find more than your share of well-trained idiots in the world.
If you believe, honestly, that a payoff of the defense counsel was involved here, you must be like my mother-in-law, convinced that the Obama administration is setting up concentration camps to get rid of those 50+, or at least denying them healthcare, or wasting money on vaccinating a bunch of kids against the Swine Flu against their parents' will.
Half an Hour? I give them ten minutes before I make sure my neighbours know I'm on the phone with the cable company. The wife gets on me about that, because it scares the hell out of our daughter...
But I do the same damn thing for a living, and as much as I get yelled at, I want to do some yelling too. Perpetuate the hatred! (But srsly, no bomb/arson/death threats...just stick to calling them dipshits/fucktards/braindead idiots, and try to get them to swear back at you).
"According to the report, the teen told investigators he'd heard if you make threats online against a plane, the police would show up at your doorstep. The teen told investigators he was only testing that theory."
It makes you wonder...did he perhaps expect Ed McMahon and the Publisher's Clearing House folks to come to the door? (That'd be a trick, and be the first sign of the so-called 'Zombie Apocalypse', but that's another issue).
There were two outcomes, either the cops come (which happened), or nothing happens (which had a fairly equal chance of happening, when you think about it). Flip a coin, you either get a new bunkmate named Louie, Bubba, or Bruno; or you continue to waste your life on WoW.
"But local people, fearing a rave was going to take place after previous events with loud music at the same premises, alerted the police."
Ok, so they may have gotten a little rowdy in the past; send patrols by to make sure things stay calm, and break it up after if it starts getting out of hand. Go up and ask questions a bit, make your presence known, to make sure it stays under control. There are ways of controlling a bad situation without much fuss, and without eliminating the possible bad situation.
This was just plain horrid reactionary behavior that points out flaws in laws that, while have good intentions, allow for abuse and make people despise them.
But the lawyer's job isn't to convince the public that his client is right, it's to persuade the jury to release him.
But this did the exact opposite, as it turns out; if the Defense is based on the impossibility of the timing provided by the Prosecution, the Defense Attorney has essentially provided a reward to give the Prosecution evidence against his own defensive theory, therefore harming his client and possibly condemning him to a jail sentence (guilt or innocence aside, depending on the basis of the Defense). So far as I've seen, it is a violation of various ethics standards for a lawyer on either side to, more or less, tank their own case, jokingly or not--in the end, if pressed, I'm sure in trial or appeal or a new trial altogether, the party who proved the possibility could end up deposed or on the stand for the prosecution. It's not necessarily a disbarment issue, but censure or other action, definitely is warranted, this particular instance in NO WAY helped his client.
They are entertaining. For awhile, I wondered about moderation and how it works here, but figured it out finally. Now, When I get modded troll or flamebait, I like to think of it as a trophy... for having offended someone enough to waste their mod point that way:)
I prefer to think of the many people upmodding me to 4 or 5 for some random crap that my fingers spewed out in a drunken haze...that requires snookering 2 or 3 of 'em, but...arguably less skill...
I suppose that, overall, it could be deemed insubordination to refuse, and you could end up out on your ass. It all depends on the company's overall handling of employees, and how willing they are to get rid of outside-the-box-thinkers.
You also need to look at any sort of contract/agreement that you'd signed pursuant to your employment; essentially, if such an agreement says that the company owns any work you do for them, which one would assume they would insert such a clause to prevent you jumping ship and taking your work elsewhere, then it's no longer your right to refuse to fill out any patent forms for the work, no matter how distasteful you might find them. And ultimately, they would likely end up going ahead and doing it anyway regardless of what they end up doing to you; and if they get rid of you in that sort of situation, the outlook is much more bleak for you should you try and pursue any legal action over your termination.
This is what I don't get...and perhaps I've been reading a bit too much of the RIAA 'intent to distribute' vs distribution bullshit, but, here's how I see it:
He posted an auction with (let's say he would follow through) the intent of selling the vote. Per the article, there we 0 bids, and the auction was still going; thus no sale had taken place, thus he has not sold his vote. That, in and of itself, nixes the case against him, slap him on the wrist and call it a day.
Also, with this law having been enacted in 1893, 5 years and $10k fine...seems to be a bit steep; I understand that times were different, but financially, who the hell had that much money in the 1890's, besides the excessively wealthy that pretty much controlled the vote and electorate to begin with? The jailtime, maybe I can see that, but with the fine coupled it leaves some doubt as to whether this sort of penalty is within how that particular piece of legislation were written.
And insofar as selling a vote for a Presidential election; even though the person is voting for Congressmen and various state positions, and whatever local positions may be up for vote, how does a state-enacted law go that far? Would that not, if illegal, be a matter that would need to be determined by Federal law? This is a bit I'm sketchy on, it's a gray area in the whole thing, and I'm not going to press it (and I'll admit to being a complete retard in that regard)...but it just doesn't seem quite right.
It's really the easiest way to knock out IT operations. That, and knock out the vending machine with the Cheetos (do they have those hooked up to the internet yet?), and progress comes to a halt.
The problem that would come up with that, is reverse-engineering; the encryption methods of publicly available software would be fairly easy, given only time.
In short, to answer your question, yes, the encrypted messages, etc, would be readable.
Unless everyone would like to send their emails hashed through a uniquely keyed algorithm. I'd prefer not to have to do that.
The US has long been resigned to give up freedoms gradually to 'ensure their security', but the end result is nowhere near worth the cost. Free thought has slowly been taken from us as a direct result of our willingness to sacrifice for no apparent reason; the current administration has really done nothing to be forthcoming with what is really going on, and we're on the way to being screwed as a result.
And this bit of legislation, whether we here in the States realise it or not, has much broader implications than just the privacy of Swedes being impeded; as I understand the article, any communications that hit Sweden are subject to monitoring; and as the article doesn't cite whether or not this requires the Originator or Terminator of a given communication be physically present in Sweden, this could include US-based items that pass through a network element of some sort that IS Swedish. And there's nothing to say that there won't be information sharing with governments of other countries, including ours, to implicate our citizens of crimes (where there are none being planned, let alone committed) on the basis of nothing but the content of a phone call or email that happened to cross through or end in Sweden. And it is foreseeable that the United States, in order to circumvent what discord there is domestically, may use that fact to continue the abuses that are already occurring, and in a way that may not be open to much challenge. All in all, this shouldn't be an outrage just for Swedes, but for anyone who would prefer that not everything they do be subject to some form of monitoring that is declared legal by some manner of court in the world.
*glances at title...(Is this really "news for nerds"?)..*
*examines the fact that this phenomenon occurred on the intarwebs...*
*considers that the intarwebs are mostly frequented and posted upon by said nerds...*
Yes, this is news for nerds.
And news for nerds = news, as the 'for nerds' is merely a narrowing qualifier, essentially irrelevant to the nature of 'news'...kinda like:
X+0=X, where X="news", etc, etc, yatta, yatta, yatta.
I just searched using as many terms as I can think of that might apply on the IL General Assembly's site, can't find anything that's been introduced as yet. www.ilga.gov if you all fancy a look yourselves; maybe I missed it.
Your first statement there is yet another example of how Apple managed to somehow win with this device with their advertising and marketing. It's not a 'complex system'--tossing music, video, etc onto a phone is a concept introduced by Apple as much as Al Gore created the internet. The only hoopla is that it's all done through iTunes rather than an application of the user's choosing (not that it REALLY makes a difference). And of course the iPhone is going to be an interactive product--but no more so that any other midrange or higher device on the market today.
And what sort of phone are you using that it can't do two things at once? For a long time, I've used several mobiles ranging from a Nokia 3300 to a Siemens SX66 (older phones, mind) that could do so with little effort. Multitasking is not a new thing either, it's just being streamlined to be handled easier but has been far from impossible.
As far as what people want, they want what they're TOLD to want. It's no big secret that a majority of consumers are sheep. If it's marketed aggressively, looks pretty, and has a brand name they'll recognize easily, they will buy it. It's very simple. As the iPhone was marketed, people wanted it; now the market isn't quite as fascinated with it, consumer attention is shifting, and as soon as another company markets a device that's as pretty and functional and hyped as the iPhone, that's what they'll want--especially if it gets tagged as an 'iPhone Killer', or something similar.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't always have the internet with me, in a form convenient for viewing xkcd or anything similar (my phone can only do so much). That, and turning pages and reading is faster than mindless clicking a next button that's never in quite the same spot. And, again, the bit of revenue to the author as a thanks for doing something they get very little for--blame me for being a blatant capitalist.
I'm not a big fan of actually buying books--my tax money, to some degree, goes to finance my public library (and free library card), so I usually just check out books that I want--but I think this is one I might actually buy. If a Questionable Content compilation would come available at some later point, I'd probably buy it too. I'd venture to guess that webcomics are low-reward thingers, and those out there that are enjoyable, well, the creators should be able to get something out of it.
You'd be amazed at the amount of incompetency that runs rampant in the world. 20-something college graduates who don't understand basic questions like, 'what's the area code of your phone number', instead giving you their fucking ZIP CODE. I'm pretty sure my child understands the difference, and she's barely old enough to piece together a sentence of more than 3 words. Look around your average shopping mall, you'll find more than your share of well-trained idiots in the world.
If you believe, honestly, that a payoff of the defense counsel was involved here, you must be like my mother-in-law, convinced that the Obama administration is setting up concentration camps to get rid of those 50+, or at least denying them healthcare, or wasting money on vaccinating a bunch of kids against the Swine Flu against their parents' will.
Wouldn't the defendant have been able to refuse to answer, or at least raise concerns, regarding that sort of questioning as well?
Half an Hour? I give them ten minutes before I make sure my neighbours know I'm on the phone with the cable company. The wife gets on me about that, because it scares the hell out of our daughter... But I do the same damn thing for a living, and as much as I get yelled at, I want to do some yelling too. Perpetuate the hatred! (But srsly, no bomb/arson/death threats...just stick to calling them dipshits/fucktards/braindead idiots, and try to get them to swear back at you).
That wouldn't happen...the authorities somewhere in the world made a big-to-do already this week.
"Play World of Warcraft? Show off your main character!"
Artist's Rendering!
FTFA:
"According to the report, the teen told investigators he'd heard if you make threats online against a plane, the police would show up at your doorstep. The teen told investigators he was only testing that theory."
It makes you wonder...did he perhaps expect Ed McMahon and the Publisher's Clearing House folks to come to the door? (That'd be a trick, and be the first sign of the so-called 'Zombie Apocalypse', but that's another issue).
There were two outcomes, either the cops come (which happened), or nothing happens (which had a fairly equal chance of happening, when you think about it). Flip a coin, you either get a new bunkmate named Louie, Bubba, or Bruno; or you continue to waste your life on WoW.
"But local people, fearing a rave was going to take place after previous events with loud music at the same premises, alerted the police."
Ok, so they may have gotten a little rowdy in the past; send patrols by to make sure things stay calm, and break it up after if it starts getting out of hand. Go up and ask questions a bit, make your presence known, to make sure it stays under control. There are ways of controlling a bad situation without much fuss, and without eliminating the possible bad situation.
This was just plain horrid reactionary behavior that points out flaws in laws that, while have good intentions, allow for abuse and make people despise them.
...What the fuck?
But the lawyer's job isn't to convince the public that his client is right, it's to persuade the jury to release him.
But this did the exact opposite, as it turns out; if the Defense is based on the impossibility of the timing provided by the Prosecution, the Defense Attorney has essentially provided a reward to give the Prosecution evidence against his own defensive theory, therefore harming his client and possibly condemning him to a jail sentence (guilt or innocence aside, depending on the basis of the Defense). So far as I've seen, it is a violation of various ethics standards for a lawyer on either side to, more or less, tank their own case, jokingly or not--in the end, if pressed, I'm sure in trial or appeal or a new trial altogether, the party who proved the possibility could end up deposed or on the stand for the prosecution. It's not necessarily a disbarment issue, but censure or other action, definitely is warranted, this particular instance in NO WAY helped his client.
But it seems they can't quite handle it right now:
.cgi script.
Sorry, but the slashdot effect is just too much for us to handle
with this perl
Moo. ]:8)
The cow was a nice touch, though.
They are entertaining. For awhile, I wondered about moderation and how it works here, but figured it out finally. Now, When I get modded troll or flamebait, I like to think of it as a trophy... for having offended someone enough to waste their mod point that way :)
I prefer to think of the many people upmodding me to 4 or 5 for some random crap that my fingers spewed out in a drunken haze...that requires snookering 2 or 3 of 'em, but...arguably less skill...
Frivolous patents are evil.
And that sort of patent wouldn't be evil, in the devious sort of way?
Though, I wonder if that would be a patentable type of thing...
I suppose that, overall, it could be deemed insubordination to refuse, and you could end up out on your ass. It all depends on the company's overall handling of employees, and how willing they are to get rid of outside-the-box-thinkers.
You also need to look at any sort of contract/agreement that you'd signed pursuant to your employment; essentially, if such an agreement says that the company owns any work you do for them, which one would assume they would insert such a clause to prevent you jumping ship and taking your work elsewhere, then it's no longer your right to refuse to fill out any patent forms for the work, no matter how distasteful you might find them. And ultimately, they would likely end up going ahead and doing it anyway regardless of what they end up doing to you; and if they get rid of you in that sort of situation, the outlook is much more bleak for you should you try and pursue any legal action over your termination.
This is what I don't get...and perhaps I've been reading a bit too much of the RIAA 'intent to distribute' vs distribution bullshit, but, here's how I see it:
He posted an auction with (let's say he would follow through) the intent of selling the vote. Per the article, there we 0 bids, and the auction was still going; thus no sale had taken place, thus he has not sold his vote. That, in and of itself, nixes the case against him, slap him on the wrist and call it a day.
Also, with this law having been enacted in 1893, 5 years and $10k fine...seems to be a bit steep; I understand that times were different, but financially, who the hell had that much money in the 1890's, besides the excessively wealthy that pretty much controlled the vote and electorate to begin with? The jailtime, maybe I can see that, but with the fine coupled it leaves some doubt as to whether this sort of penalty is within how that particular piece of legislation were written.
And insofar as selling a vote for a Presidential election; even though the person is voting for Congressmen and various state positions, and whatever local positions may be up for vote, how does a state-enacted law go that far? Would that not, if illegal, be a matter that would need to be determined by Federal law? This is a bit I'm sketchy on, it's a gray area in the whole thing, and I'm not going to press it (and I'll admit to being a complete retard in that regard)...but it just doesn't seem quite right.
It's really the easiest way to knock out IT operations. That, and knock out the vending machine with the Cheetos (do they have those hooked up to the internet yet?), and progress comes to a halt.
My concern is that I might somehow end up with decaf, rather than my normal java.
Your post was infinitely more amusing, I feel ashamed that I neglected my browser...
The problem that would come up with that, is reverse-engineering; the encryption methods of publicly available software would be fairly easy, given only time.
In short, to answer your question, yes, the encrypted messages, etc, would be readable.
Unless everyone would like to send their emails hashed through a uniquely keyed algorithm. I'd prefer not to have to do that.
The US has long been resigned to give up freedoms gradually to 'ensure their security', but the end result is nowhere near worth the cost. Free thought has slowly been taken from us as a direct result of our willingness to sacrifice for no apparent reason; the current administration has really done nothing to be forthcoming with what is really going on, and we're on the way to being screwed as a result.
And this bit of legislation, whether we here in the States realise it or not, has much broader implications than just the privacy of Swedes being impeded; as I understand the article, any communications that hit Sweden are subject to monitoring; and as the article doesn't cite whether or not this requires the Originator or Terminator of a given communication be physically present in Sweden, this could include US-based items that pass through a network element of some sort that IS Swedish. And there's nothing to say that there won't be information sharing with governments of other countries, including ours, to implicate our citizens of crimes (where there are none being planned, let alone committed) on the basis of nothing but the content of a phone call or email that happened to cross through or end in Sweden. And it is foreseeable that the United States, in order to circumvent what discord there is domestically, may use that fact to continue the abuses that are already occurring, and in a way that may not be open to much challenge. All in all, this shouldn't be an outrage just for Swedes, but for anyone who would prefer that not everything they do be subject to some form of monitoring that is declared legal by some manner of court in the world.
Ignore the lack of line breaks above, for I am an idiot.
*glances at title...(Is this really "news for nerds"?)..* *examines the fact that this phenomenon occurred on the intarwebs...* *considers that the intarwebs are mostly frequented and posted upon by said nerds...* Yes, this is news for nerds. And news for nerds = news, as the 'for nerds' is merely a narrowing qualifier, essentially irrelevant to the nature of 'news'...kinda like: X+0=X, where X="news", etc, etc, yatta, yatta, yatta.
I just searched using as many terms as I can think of that might apply on the IL General Assembly's site, can't find anything that's been introduced as yet. www.ilga.gov if you all fancy a look yourselves; maybe I missed it.
And, don't forget (dear God, forgive me for this):
"Miss Mary Mack Mack Mack
All dressed in black, black, black
With silver buttons, buttons, buttons
All down her back, back, back.
She asked her mother, mother, mother
For 50 cents, cents, cents
To see the elephants, elephants, elephants
Jump over the fence, fence, fence.
They jumped so high, high, high
They reached the sky, sky, sky
And they didn't come back, back, back
'Til the 4th of July, ly, ly!"
Your first statement there is yet another example of how Apple managed to somehow win with this device with their advertising and marketing. It's not a 'complex system'--tossing music, video, etc onto a phone is a concept introduced by Apple as much as Al Gore created the internet. The only hoopla is that it's all done through iTunes rather than an application of the user's choosing (not that it REALLY makes a difference). And of course the iPhone is going to be an interactive product--but no more so that any other midrange or higher device on the market today.
And what sort of phone are you using that it can't do two things at once? For a long time, I've used several mobiles ranging from a Nokia 3300 to a Siemens SX66 (older phones, mind) that could do so with little effort. Multitasking is not a new thing either, it's just being streamlined to be handled easier but has been far from impossible.
As far as what people want, they want what they're TOLD to want. It's no big secret that a majority of consumers are sheep. If it's marketed aggressively, looks pretty, and has a brand name they'll recognize easily, they will buy it. It's very simple. As the iPhone was marketed, people wanted it; now the market isn't quite as fascinated with it, consumer attention is shifting, and as soon as another company markets a device that's as pretty and functional and hyped as the iPhone, that's what they'll want--especially if it gets tagged as an 'iPhone Killer', or something similar.