Did anyone notice the "gift icon" next to the Item Number at the top?
Yes, ladies, and gentleman, this is just a great gift idea for your little hacker at home. No longer will your little script kiddy need to take down misc. web sites in his spare time! No! He'll have his own web site!
As a bonus, he's learn how to curse properly when someone floods his network!
A few months back, I remember someone was proposing a change to the law that handled seized property. In short, the law (at least at the time) read that the government did NOT have to return seized property that was not held as evidence, or in connection with any crime.
(even shorter: the govenment could take something that was totally irrelivent to a crime, and not return it)
The only reference I could find was this proposed change:
I'm not certain if that's even the correct bill (Damit Jim, I'm an SysAdmin, not a lawyer!), but you get the jist of what I'm getting at. If this got into place, maybe he has a chance at getting the data back. If not, maybe not. {shrug}
If gun manufactures aren't liable for the deaths caused by shootings, why would a electronics company be liable for what it's customers use their devices for?
Hmm, I just noticed that the this artile number was 'article.pl?sid=99/12/31/0757254'.
Slashdot, are you going to take a hit in less than a couple hours, with a Y2K (perl related) issue of your own, or are we just going to see artiles labled 100/01/01/...?
Slashdot Mirror
Did anyone notice the "gift icon" next to the Item Number at the top?
Yes, ladies, and gentleman, this is just a great gift idea for your little hacker at home. No longer will your little script kiddy need to take down misc. web sites in his spare time! No! He'll have his own web site!
As a bonus, he's learn how to curse properly when someone floods his network!
I am doing tech-managing of some programers that are porting/rewriting some out-sourced code right now. I believe "Caveat emptor" says it all.
Let the buyer beware!
Shane
(even shorter: the govenment could take something that was totally irrelivent to a crime, and not return it)
The only reference I could find was this proposed change:
Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (Engrossed in House )[H.R.1658.EH]
I'm not certain if that's even the correct bill (Damit Jim, I'm an SysAdmin, not a lawyer!), but you get the jist of what I'm getting at. If this got into place, maybe he has a chance at getting the data back. If not, maybe not. {shrug}
Shane
This whole thing reminds me of a little story:
One day, the marching band instructor was watching that day's practice when he noticed that Smith was out of step with everyone else.
"Smith, march in step!" Said the instructor.
"I am," said Smith back.
"No you are not! You're completly out of step with everyone else. Sometimes your too fast, sometimes you too slow."
"But I'm marching to the beet! Everyone else is out of step!"
If gun manufactures aren't liable for the deaths caused by shootings, why would a electronics company be liable for what it's customers use their devices for?
(Sounds like they need a better lobbyist...)
Hmm, I just noticed that the this artile number was 'article.pl?sid=99/12/31/0757254'.
Slashdot, are you going to take a hit in less than a couple hours, with a Y2K (perl related) issue of your own, or are we just going to see artiles labled 100/01/01/...?
Shane
Although I am unable to get to www.dilbert.com, The Dilbert Zone is up and operational. {shrug} Shane