They can't legally enforce that without good reason to think you're stealing something -- otherwise, they can be legally sued for false arrest by detaining you as you walk out the door.
IANAL, so I don't know if it really is 'false arrest' but I never go along with this bullshit when a store wants to stop me and "review" me recipt.
"If you have reason to believe that I've stolen something, call the police and we'll sort it all out. If you don't believe that I've stolen anything, you are just harrassing me. So which will it be? Are you going to call the police, or are you going to get out of my way?"
Linux was born and has grown up out of a desire for und users, like us, to have another choice for a fast, stable and feature filled OS.
When businesses begin to see linux as a source of revenue is when they will take steps to protect their slice of the pie.
I ask you this, what if MS developed a version of linux and added a closed source kernel driver that would be required to run MS Office for linux?
This would be completely legal, businesses would be interested in running the MS linux because of the mountains of free software out there plus 100% compatibility with MS Office.
The "business" market taking a serious interest in linux will only be bad in the long run.
I have seen alot of people here telling techs that they shouldn't blame end users for not knowing any better.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see it that way.
ONLY when it comes to tech products can people believe that it is alright to be uninformed and ill prepared to function.
If I worked for Ford Motor Company and I got a call from some idiot who didn't know that you had to use a key to unlock the door or start the engine on his brand new Mustang, I'd be highly upset.
If I worked for Nike, I'd be pissed off if I was expected to take calls from idiots who couldn't figure out how to lace their new Air Force One's.
Peoplw who work for BMG aren't expected to take calls from clueless fucks who don't know which side faces up when they play their new Backstreet Boys CD.
I've worked tech support in several industries, and the attitudes of idiots are universal. It is MY fault because THEY don't know what the fuck they're doing.
In addition to computers. I have done tech support of a Satellite TV providor. I couldn't tell you the number of people who have to call in EVERY TIME their power goes out and their TV gets reset to channel 2. You read the 80 notes in the account and the first thing you try is to have them press the buttons "0" and then "3" on their remote control, because that's what they were instructed to do 80 times before and guess what, it works!
Sure, some companies force techs to follow a scripts that cripple their ability to help customers, but the larger problem is that it is too easy for people to live out their lives in ignorance.
I'm not going to comment on the guys down at Guantanamo Bay, because I probably agree with your position. Besides that's not relevent to the lead up to the 2001 war.
So then it's not so ridiculous that they may have thought that someone wouldn't get a fair trial from the US Government after all.
Afghanistan under the Taliban was a state sponsor of terrorism. One can, therefore, argue that by supporting the Taliban, you support al Qaeda. However, regardless of al Qaeda, supporting the Taliban when their at war against the US sounds like treason to me.
My parents' tax dollars went to support the Mujahidin, which later became the Taliban. Boy, I'm glad that they have both passed away, otherwise some idiot out there would be claiming that they should be brought up on charges for supporting a group that would later go on to support Al Qaeda.
Or do you think they were afraid the U.S. wouldn't give bin Laden a fair trial? Yeah, that sounds about right.
How many fair trials have been given to the men detained in Cuba?
Remember this question? Want to answer it?
Sure. We figured out that some of the hijackers had Al Qaeda connections, and that it was probably an Al Qaeda operation. bin Laden fashioned himself the leader of Al Qaeda. Reasonable to assume he knew something about what his Evil Terrorist Organization was up to.
Then why was it such a problem to show this information to the Afghan govornment?
We could have extradited him easy on that stuff alone (in fact we tried to a few times)
Not true. When we demanded Osama, and the Afghans said they would turn him over only after we showed them evidence of his involvement, this country mobilized its military.
No negotiations, no attempt at extradition. Check your facts.
War against taliban not justified - guess nobody you knew was in those tower, you fuck farmboy.
The Taliban DID NOT ATTACK US. All evidence points to Osama Bin Laden as the leader of the group that attacked us. Osama was not a member of the Taliban. Or is one Arab as good as any other to you?
No proof for 9/11 - oh, it was the jews huh?
No you idiot, that's not what I said at all. I said that it was completely reasonable for Afghanistan to request that we show them the proof that we had before they turned anyone over to us.
Taliban is just like the jews - Yes, jews are well known for living in squalor, beating women, hanging people at the local soccer stadium and blowing up ancient religious imagery.
Do Orthodox or Hasidic Jews make a practice of eating pork? Do Hasidic Jewish women cover their heads when in the view of anyone other than their husbands? In case you don't know, the answers are "No" to the first question and "Yes" to the second question. Those are both practices that fundamentalists Muslims follow as well. Do you dispute the similarities between fundamentalist Muslims and Orthodox and Hasidic Jews?
Let me explain something to you. Using the word Jew or Muslim does not make one an anti-semite. But then, it's easier for you to throw labels at me than to deal with the issues that I raised, isn't it?
I'll give you the same question I ask every liberal, NPR spouting person
I'm a right wing Republican. Thank you very mucn.
Did you actively oppose former President Clinton's "unjust" military action of firing tomahawk missiles at Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden? Did you actively, vocally oppose his unilateral bombing of Iraq?
Yes. And Yes. And I also opposed the first president Bush's war in Iraq.
Let me offer you multiple choice answers since they are all pretty much the same from every hippy I ask this of:
As I said before, I'm a right wing Republican. You're grinding the wrong axe. I have no problem with the US wanting Osama. All of the evidence we've uncovered thus far indicates that he was at the center of the plot to attack our country. My problem comes in with us bombing soverign nations and pretending that it was for our own protection.
This bullshit line of us asking them and them saying prove it is a man sized pile of horse crap spread primarily amoung the NPR crowd
Why is it bullshit? Because you don't think that a country full of brown people deserves to be dealt squarely with?
A reasonable country would have extradited a known terrorist ringleader, and wouldn't have been given him and his Really Evil organization support to begin with.
A reasonable country would have extradited him, if and when we provided them with some proof.
Or do you think they were afraid the U.S. wouldn't give bin Laden a fair trial? Yeah, that sounds about right.
How many fair trials have been given to the men detained in Cuba?
you don't have to prove the guy did it before the trial actually begins. What's the point of a trial, then?
Let's for a moment, pretend that we're talking about a US Citizen in a regular criminal case(which you apparently are). You have to have SOME evidence, or you can't even get an indictment.
My thoughts (and others) are not proof... but they did represent how pretty much everyone knew bin Laden to be a bad guy who would do JUST that sort of thing.
I'm the sort of guy who'd pee on someone's rose bush if I didn't like them. That doesn't mean that just because my neighbors rose bush smells of urine, that I'm to blame. Like I said before, all evidence indicates that Osama's merry little band is to blame for 9/11, but that still does not justify the bombing of Afghanistan. Osama was/is not a member of the Taliban.
But can you not see that the Taliban and Osama bin Laden were Bad Guys who should have been dealt with somehow, even before all the 9/11 craziness?
Osama, of course. Taliban? No. They were the legitimate government of a soverign nation. They had broken no international laws. They didn't pose an immediate threat to the safety or security of my country. There was no justification for attacking them.
My irony meter just exploded, here we have a right wing republican (me) trying to explain to the left wing peacenicks here on/. why we shouldn't have been in a war.
The Taliban were just bullshitting us. There was plenty of proof for extradition, and everyone knew it.
And you know this because of what? Woman's intuition? Our government didn't even take the time to find out if the Afghans would keep their word. They just bombed them.
bin Laden was known by everyone to be the head of the terrorist organization that was dedicated to killing as many Americans as possible. They took responsibility for bombing the USS Cole, the two African embassies, and many other terrorist acts.
Every time a bomb goes off, many groups claim responsibility. That doesn't constitute proof.
On Sept 11, I and quite a few other people around the world, when we thought about who to blame, thought first of Osama bin Laden.
Non issue. We don't go to war against other oppressive regimes? We used economic sanctions against South Africa for decades before I was born. We give MFN to Red China!!
What did they do to homosexuals? Bury them alive.
Another non-issue. What does that have to do with the safety or security of the US? Nothing!
And you talk about "proof" Bin Laden pulled off the 9/11 attacks after comparing the Taliban to Jews? You anti-semitic utter fucking moron, Bin Laden claimed responsibility - he had the means, the motive, the organization, and the history.
I don't know if you're trolling of if this is a serious response, so I'll treat it seriously.
1. The Original poster said that the fundamentalist Muslims of the Taliban were wacky because they don't eat pork and expect women to cover themselves. I pointed out the Orthodox and Hasidic Jews don't eat pork and their women cover their heads. What is antisemitic about speaking the truth?
2. Jews and Arabs are BOTH SEMITIC PEOPLE!!!! How can comparing two like things be antisemitic?
Instead of tossing anti-semitic and anti-American fantasies, why don't you tell me who you believe attacked the US on 9/11, and that French tanker a few months ago, and that Bali nightclub full of Australians and that hotel in Indonesia a few days ago?
I have said nothing anti-semitic or antii-american. My statements were anti-unjust war. All credible evidence points to Osama and his laughing boys, but that still doesn't change any of the points from my original post, that the Taliban government of Afghanistan acted in a manner that is consistant with what any other reasonable country would have done in the situation.
Could someone explain why people are comparing the Talaban to Al Queda?
Give me a harder question next time, the reason for the comparison is simple. It provided justification for an unjust military action.
This is simply a case of "All of those brown people are the same to the semi literate consumeroids who are watching CNN". The Taliban acted in the same way that France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Norway or any other reasonable country would have in the case of Osama Bin Laden.
After 9/11/01 the US asked the government of Afghanistan if they had him, they replied that he was under their control and that they would turn him over, if the US was willing to provide proof that he had done something wrong.
Instead of providing that proof, we and the Russians (our adversary from long before I was born until the early 1990's) started bombing them. We bombed them for no good reason. The international community was largely silent because no one wanted to risk the wrath of the US after ~3000 of our citizens were violently killed in a terrorist attack.
The Taliban was a horrible regime, but they were not a threat in any way to the immediate security of the US.
I have just been wondering, those guys don't care about the US, the just want to make sure they don't alow their kids to eat pork or their wives to be seen in public, (that does not make them terrorists. Wacky, yes, terrorists, no).
Doesn't even make them wacky. Their beliefs were not too much different than those of the Orthodox or Hasidic Jews that we have here.
It looks like to boot your computer, the key needs to be there. So make sure the police never show up while you are using the computer, never keep the key on you and keep your case open all the time so you can attach/detach it easily?
Look at the illustration here you will see that the key plugs into a pigtail that is obviously meant to be routed through an available slot at the back of the case into the outside world.
So, let us say for the sake of argument, that you are storing something sensitive anought to make it worth this effort. Unless 3rd Echelon is coming for you, you'll have at least a few seconds notice when someone is coming in.
Step 1. Remove key. Step 2. Crush key between your molars. Step 3. Depress and release reset button on PC's case.
I mean, because of the nature of the security, it seems to me that one wouldn't want to run the OS or anything from the encrypted drive, just to store any files that need to be kept private.
I installed our linux servers here, and am in charge of having a plan in case of the worst possible scenario -- SCO forces "the man" to have me remove gnu/linux from our company
What I don't get is how does SCO think that they even have a chance of forcing anyone to change their server software. If you change your issue.net to indicate that you're running *BSD or somesuch, SCO wouldn't even look twice at your machine.
Slashdot Mirror
They could legally deny your future access to their store(s) if they felt like you were as submisive as they had expected.
Their loss, not mine. I will just spend my money elsewhere.
Shopping privately owned store is a priviledge, not a right.
Just like getting my money.
Although you have a right to not allow them to review your receipt, pretty soon you would found yourself banned from BB, CC, OD, OM, etc...
If it were just me, you'd be absolutely correct. If more people would stand up for themselves, these places would stop the idiocy.
LK
They can't legally enforce that without good reason to think you're stealing something -- otherwise, they can be legally sued for false arrest by detaining you as you walk out the door.
IANAL, so I don't know if it really is 'false arrest' but I never go along with this bullshit when a store wants to stop me and "review" me recipt.
"If you have reason to believe that I've stolen something, call the police and we'll sort it all out. If you don't believe that I've stolen anything, you are just harrassing me. So which will it be? Are you going to call the police, or are you going to get out of my way?"
LK
Every time you purchase such restricted hardware, spin off a new Corporation.
Cisco Router Model X SN#12039okaj0123iasj Inc.
When you sell off the equipment, sell off the company. The software is licensed to that corporation. No need to relicense.
LK
Linux was born and has grown up out of a desire for und users, like us, to have another choice for a fast, stable and feature filled OS.
When businesses begin to see linux as a source of revenue is when they will take steps to protect their slice of the pie.
I ask you this, what if MS developed a version of linux and added a closed source kernel driver that would be required to run MS Office for linux?
This would be completely legal, businesses would be interested in running the MS linux because of the mountains of free software out there plus 100% compatibility with MS Office.
The "business" market taking a serious interest in linux will only be bad in the long run.
LK
I have seen alot of people here telling techs that they shouldn't blame end users for not knowing any better.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see it that way.
ONLY when it comes to tech products can people believe that it is alright to be uninformed and ill prepared to function.
If I worked for Ford Motor Company and I got a call from some idiot who didn't know that you had to use a key to unlock the door or start the engine on his brand new Mustang, I'd be highly upset.
If I worked for Nike, I'd be pissed off if I was expected to take calls from idiots who couldn't figure out how to lace their new Air Force One's.
Peoplw who work for BMG aren't expected to take calls from clueless fucks who don't know which side faces up when they play their new Backstreet Boys CD.
I've worked tech support in several industries, and the attitudes of idiots are universal. It is MY fault because THEY don't know what the fuck they're doing.
In addition to computers. I have done tech support of a Satellite TV providor. I couldn't tell you the number of people who have to call in EVERY TIME their power goes out and their TV gets reset to channel 2. You read the 80 notes in the account and the first thing you try is to have them press the buttons "0" and then "3" on their remote control, because that's what they were instructed to do 80 times before and guess what, it works!
Sure, some companies force techs to follow a scripts that cripple their ability to help customers, but the larger problem is that it is too easy for people to live out their lives in ignorance.
LK
What more needs to be said?
there's no reason not to go in and regulate.
Who are you, Warren G?
There is no reason to avoid a justified conflict, but only a fool walks around daring someone to knock the chip off of his shoulder.
LK
this sends a mixed message.
Now, all a bible belt state has to do to reinstitute a ban on sodomy is to classify it as "Committing an obscene act."
Since obscenity is now just a state's rights issue.
LK
I'm not going to comment on the guys down at Guantanamo Bay, because I probably agree with your position. Besides that's not relevent to the lead up to the 2001 war.
So then it's not so ridiculous that they may have thought that someone wouldn't get a fair trial from the US Government after all.
LK
Afghanistan under the Taliban was a state sponsor of terrorism. One can, therefore, argue that by supporting the Taliban, you support al Qaeda. However, regardless of al Qaeda, supporting the Taliban when their at war against the US sounds like treason to me.
My parents' tax dollars went to support the Mujahidin, which later became the Taliban. Boy, I'm glad that they have both passed away, otherwise some idiot out there would be claiming that they should be brought up on charges for supporting a group that would later go on to support Al Qaeda.
LK
Whether or not he was associated with 9/11, the taliban were sheltering him from justice, and they knew it.
Requiring that some manner of proof be provided before you extradite a suspected criminal is not shielding him.
LK
Or do you think they were afraid the U.S. wouldn't give bin Laden a fair trial? Yeah, that sounds about right.
How many fair trials have been given to the men detained in Cuba?
Remember this question? Want to answer it?
Sure. We figured out that some of the hijackers had Al Qaeda connections, and that it was probably an Al Qaeda operation. bin Laden fashioned himself the leader of Al Qaeda. Reasonable to assume he knew something about what his Evil Terrorist Organization was up to.
Then why was it such a problem to show this information to the Afghan govornment?
We could have extradited him easy on that stuff alone (in fact we tried to a few times)
Not true. When we demanded Osama, and the Afghans said they would turn him over only after we showed them evidence of his involvement, this country mobilized its military.
No negotiations, no attempt at extradition. Check your facts.
LK
War against taliban not justified - guess nobody you knew was in those tower, you fuck farmboy.
The Taliban DID NOT ATTACK US. All evidence points to Osama Bin Laden as the leader of the group that attacked us. Osama was not a member of the Taliban. Or is one Arab as good as any other to you?
No proof for 9/11 - oh, it was the jews huh?
No you idiot, that's not what I said at all. I said that it was completely reasonable for Afghanistan to request that we show them the proof that we had before they turned anyone over to us.
Taliban is just like the jews - Yes, jews are well known for living in squalor, beating women, hanging people at the local soccer stadium and blowing up ancient religious imagery.
Do Orthodox or Hasidic Jews make a practice of eating pork? Do Hasidic Jewish women cover their heads when in the view of anyone other than their husbands? In case you don't know, the answers are "No" to the first question and "Yes" to the second question. Those are both practices that fundamentalists Muslims follow as well. Do you dispute the similarities between fundamentalist Muslims and Orthodox and Hasidic Jews?
Let me explain something to you. Using the word Jew or Muslim does not make one an anti-semite. But then, it's easier for you to throw labels at me than to deal with the issues that I raised, isn't it?
LK
Did you even read my post? Or did you just skim through it?
I'm sorry if the issues that I raised were too complicated for you to grasp.
LK
I'll give you the same question I ask every liberal, NPR spouting person
I'm a right wing Republican. Thank you very mucn.
Did you actively oppose former President Clinton's "unjust" military action of firing tomahawk missiles at Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden? Did you actively, vocally oppose his unilateral bombing of Iraq?
Yes. And Yes. And I also opposed the first president Bush's war in Iraq.
Let me offer you multiple choice answers since they are all pretty much the same from every hippy I ask this of:
As I said before, I'm a right wing Republican. You're grinding the wrong axe. I have no problem with the US wanting Osama. All of the evidence we've uncovered thus far indicates that he was at the center of the plot to attack our country. My problem comes in with us bombing soverign nations and pretending that it was for our own protection.
This bullshit line of us asking them and them saying prove it is a man sized pile of horse crap spread primarily amoung the NPR crowd
Why is it bullshit? Because you don't think that a country full of brown people deserves to be dealt squarely with?
LK
A reasonable country would have extradited a known terrorist ringleader, and wouldn't have been given him and his Really Evil organization support to begin with.
A reasonable country would have extradited him, if and when we provided them with some proof.
Or do you think they were afraid the U.S. wouldn't give bin Laden a fair trial? Yeah, that sounds about right.
How many fair trials have been given to the men detained in Cuba?
you don't have to prove the guy did it before the trial actually begins. What's the point of a trial, then?
Let's for a moment, pretend that we're talking about a US Citizen in a regular criminal case(which you apparently are). You have to have SOME evidence, or you can't even get an indictment.
LK
My thoughts (and others) are not proof... but they did represent how pretty much everyone knew bin Laden to be a bad guy who would do JUST that sort of thing.
/. why we shouldn't have been in a war.
I'm the sort of guy who'd pee on someone's rose bush if I didn't like them. That doesn't mean that just because my neighbors rose bush smells of urine, that I'm to blame. Like I said before, all evidence indicates that Osama's merry little band is to blame for 9/11, but that still does not justify the bombing of Afghanistan. Osama was/is not a member of the Taliban.
But can you not see that the Taliban and Osama bin Laden were Bad Guys who should have been dealt with somehow, even before all the 9/11 craziness?
Osama, of course. Taliban? No. They were the legitimate government of a soverign nation. They had broken no international laws. They didn't pose an immediate threat to the safety or security of my country. There was no justification for attacking them.
My irony meter just exploded, here we have a right wing republican (me) trying to explain to the left wing peacenicks here on
LK
The Taliban were just bullshitting us. There was plenty of proof for extradition, and everyone knew it.
And you know this because of what? Woman's intuition? Our government didn't even take the time to find out if the Afghans would keep their word. They just bombed them.
bin Laden was known by everyone to be the head of the terrorist organization that was dedicated to killing as many Americans as possible. They took responsibility for bombing the USS Cole, the two African embassies, and many other terrorist acts.
Every time a bomb goes off, many groups claim responsibility. That doesn't constitute proof.
On Sept 11, I and quite a few other people around the world, when we thought about who to blame, thought first of Osama bin Laden.
Your thoughts are not proof.
LK
How many girls went to school under the Taliban?
Non issue. We don't go to war against other oppressive regimes? We used economic sanctions against South Africa for decades before I was born. We give MFN to Red China!!
What did they do to homosexuals? Bury them alive.
Another non-issue. What does that have to do with the safety or security of the US? Nothing!
And you talk about "proof" Bin Laden pulled off the 9/11 attacks after comparing the Taliban to Jews? You anti-semitic utter fucking moron, Bin Laden claimed responsibility - he had the means, the motive, the organization, and the history.
I don't know if you're trolling of if this is a serious response, so I'll treat it seriously.
1. The Original poster said that the fundamentalist Muslims of the Taliban were wacky because they don't eat pork and expect women to cover themselves. I pointed out the Orthodox and Hasidic Jews don't eat pork and their women cover their heads. What is antisemitic about speaking the truth?
2. Jews and Arabs are BOTH SEMITIC PEOPLE!!!! How can comparing two like things be antisemitic?
Instead of tossing anti-semitic and anti-American fantasies, why don't you tell me who you believe attacked the US on 9/11, and that French tanker a few months ago, and that Bali nightclub full of Australians and that hotel in Indonesia a few days ago?
I have said nothing anti-semitic or antii-american. My statements were anti-unjust war. All credible evidence points to Osama and his laughing boys, but that still doesn't change any of the points from my original post, that the Taliban government of Afghanistan acted in a manner that is consistant with what any other reasonable country would have done in the situation.
Where is Ginger Device?
There are imitations of Baby, Scarry, Sporty, and Posh. WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON. I want Ginger Device!!!!!!!
I sure would like those ladies to give me a little personal demonstration on I/O, packets, mounting, and of course FSCK!!!!!
LK
Could someone explain why people are comparing the Talaban to Al Queda?
Give me a harder question next time, the reason for the comparison is simple. It provided justification for an unjust military action.
This is simply a case of "All of those brown people are the same to the semi literate consumeroids who are watching CNN". The Taliban acted in the same way that France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Norway or any other reasonable country would have in the case of Osama Bin Laden.
After 9/11/01 the US asked the government of Afghanistan if they had him, they replied that he was under their control and that they would turn him over, if the US was willing to provide proof that he had done something wrong.
Instead of providing that proof, we and the Russians (our adversary from long before I was born until the early 1990's) started bombing them. We bombed them for no good reason. The international community was largely silent because no one wanted to risk the wrath of the US after ~3000 of our citizens were violently killed in a terrorist attack.
The Taliban was a horrible regime, but they were not a threat in any way to the immediate security of the US.
I have just been wondering, those guys don't care about the US, the just want to make sure they don't alow their kids to eat pork or their wives to be seen in public, (that does not make them terrorists. Wacky, yes, terrorists, no).
Doesn't even make them wacky. Their beliefs were not too much different than those of the Orthodox or Hasidic Jews that we have here.
LK
Geek Chick!!!!
So, what're YOU doing later?
LK
It looks like to boot your computer, the key needs to be there. So make sure the police never show up while you are using the computer, never keep the key on you and keep your case open all the time so you can attach/detach it easily?
Look at the illustration here you will see that the key plugs into a pigtail that is obviously meant to be routed through an available slot at the back of the case into the outside world.
So, let us say for the sake of argument, that you are storing something sensitive anought to make it worth this effort. Unless 3rd Echelon is coming for you, you'll have at least a few seconds notice when someone is coming in.
Step 1. Remove key.
Step 2. Crush key between your molars.
Step 3. Depress and release reset button on PC's case.
I mean, because of the nature of the security, it seems to me that one wouldn't want to run the OS or anything from the encrypted drive, just to store any files that need to be kept private.
LK
I installed our linux servers here, and am in charge of having a plan in case of the worst possible scenario -- SCO forces "the man" to have me remove gnu/linux from our company
What I don't get is how does SCO think that they even have a chance of forcing anyone to change their server software. If you change your issue.net to indicate that you're running *BSD or somesuch, SCO wouldn't even look twice at your machine.
LK
Yes, in the form of a 'No Solicitors' sign under my doorbell.
By the rationale of the thread, you shouldn't have to spend your money to buy that sign.