Yes, destroying the evidence is obstruction of justice, and it’s pretty clearly defined from the legal end of things, so I’m not sure what your confusion arises from.
Conspiracy theories? You mean the ones that are printed on the official court ruling, which was issued by the actual judge? Those conspiracy theories?
Yeah, the absurd notion that he was sentenced for felony obstruction of justice is totally a conspiracy theory. If you’re a complete idiot. Which you are.
No, it was possible to play other sounds on the internal PC speaker. The sound quality wasn’t great and you had to write your own driver, but it could be done.
Actually, no, trespass occurs whenever you intentionally enter property that you know belongs to someone else.
Trespass to land is a common law tort that is committed when an individual or the object of an individual intentionally (or in Australia negligently) enters the land of another without a lawful excuse.
However,
In most jurisdictions, if a person were to accidentally enter onto private property, there would be no trespass, because the person did not intend any violation.
In practice, this means that you can pretty easily defend yourself in some cases by arguing that you weren’t aware that you were on private property. So what you said is usually more or less correct, in practice, although technically not really correct.
Walking into someone else’s house (even if the door was open) is pretty difficult to justify under either of the claims that you didn’t realize that it was private property or you thought it was supposed to be okay for you to go there, unless perhaps there was some kind of sign telling you to come in or something. I’m not sure how far courts would let you take that, though... I rather doubt that they’d swallow the claim that an open door, a Welcome mat and a plaque reading “mi casa es su casa” would be permission to walk in, put a football game on TV, and raid the fridge for some halftime snacks.
He got a slap on the wrist for looking at e-mails, and a year for felony obstruction of justice (which the justice department tends to frown upon, strangely enough).
If you have trivially-bypassed locks on your house, and someone "picks" them and walks in, are they still guilty in the United States of breaking and entering?
It may depend on what state you’re in, but generally speaking, yes. In fact, even if the door wasn’t locked at all, you are “breaking and entering” if an unauthorized person opens it and enters. However, if the door was already open, you’re not breaking and entering (but you are trespassing).
No, the real joke is that security types (such as the people who work for Yahoo) appear to think that security questions are actually making our accounts more secure.
Okay, that’s so unfunny that I take it back. We all know the real purpose of those questions, and it’s not to make the account more secure. It’s to cut back on the hassle of resetting people’s passwords because they can’t remember their old one.
You might compare someone being charged with breaking and entering into a house, the door to which was secured with a strip of masking tape.
Someone can be charged with breaking and entering. In fact, the door doesn’t need to be locked at all. If they even just open the door, they are breaking and entering. If the door is already open, they are only trespassing unless/until they steal something.
Who's 'they? Assuming girls, you can like it or not, but good luck changing things.
Well, I never said I expected “them” to change because I complained.
The sexual interest is most certainly not moment to moment - they decide you're interesting in a sexual dimension or not. Once you're in the 'not' bucket (aka friend zone), good luck getting out of it.
Interest is moment-to-moment. Disinterest is more or less permanent. Something in the middle... could go either way.
Why bother with an extra WiFi dongle? Win7 comes with drivers that let you create a virtual network adapter to broadcast an access point and set up an SSID and passphrase for it, and I think Linux should have no problem doing the same. No idea about Mac OS (though it has a Linux-based core, so I don’t see why not).
Moral: Set your bookmark to "https://www.facebook.com" so that the cookie is sent via a secure connection.
That may not prevent the cookie from being allowed to be sent via an insecure connection. In which case, all the attacker has to do is pretend to be facebook and ask for it.
If the cookie can only be sent via a secure connection, they can’t do that, since the SSL certificate ensures that the server you’re talking to is actually facebook. But just because the connection is secured doesn’t mean the “secure connections only” bit in the cookie gets set.
On a WPA2 network, a user cannot eavesdrop on another user despite having the same key, because a unique handshake is performed when each user connects. Without the data that was passed in the handshake, an eavesdropper has no way of decrypting your traffic.
They can, however, force your connection to be reset, and when you reconnect they can capture the handshake. With the data that was passed in the handshake, they can decrypt all of your traffic.
I never accepted your premise that it would be "much cheaper to not have insurance" (i.e, to pay the fine instead) in the first place.
That’s not a premise, it’s a fact. According to the health care package that Obama et. al. rammed through Congress, it will be cheaper to pay the fine.
even if paying the fine has a smaller price tag than the insurance premium, you're getting no value for that money
You get no value from insurance either, unless you need it. And they can’t refuse you because of a “pre-existing” condition when you need it.
go ahead and pay the difference for the insurance, and thereby get the benefits (since the insurance would probably cover non-catastrophic medical expenses too)
And even smarter people will realise how incredibly stupid it is to get insurance for a predictable, planned expense!!
It’s a shell game. You’re just paying someone to hold onto your money for you temporarily, and they’ll take their cut of course.
Not to mention you’re helping pay the medical bills for everyone who waited until they had some catastrophic illness before they bought insurance!
all that shows to me is that the fine is too low. Raise it until getting insurance is cheaper and you've solved the problem!
Whoopdefuckingdo. You apparently are smarter than all the democrats in congress, and the president too. Why don’t you tell them instead of posting your theories on slashdot?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, destroying the evidence is obstruction of justice, and it’s pretty clearly defined from the legal end of things, so I’m not sure what your confusion arises from.
Conspiracy theories? You mean the ones that are printed on the official court ruling, which was issued by the actual judge? Those conspiracy theories?
Yeah, the absurd notion that he was sentenced for felony obstruction of justice is totally a conspiracy theory. If you’re a complete idiot. Which you are.
DOS had 16 colors, no sound (beeping isn't sound)
No, it was possible to play other sounds on the internal PC speaker. The sound quality wasn’t great and you had to write your own driver, but it could be done.
Actually, no, trespass occurs whenever you intentionally enter property that you know belongs to someone else.
Trespass to land is a common law tort that is committed when an individual or the object of an individual intentionally (or in Australia negligently) enters the land of another without a lawful excuse.
However,
In most jurisdictions, if a person were to accidentally enter onto private property, there would be no trespass, because the person did not intend any violation.
In practice, this means that you can pretty easily defend yourself in some cases by arguing that you weren’t aware that you were on private property. So what you said is usually more or less correct, in practice, although technically not really correct.
Walking into someone else’s house (even if the door was open) is pretty difficult to justify under either of the claims that you didn’t realize that it was private property or you thought it was supposed to be okay for you to go there, unless perhaps there was some kind of sign telling you to come in or something. I’m not sure how far courts would let you take that, though... I rather doubt that they’d swallow the claim that an open door, a Welcome mat and a plaque reading “mi casa es su casa” would be permission to walk in, put a football game on TV, and raid the fridge for some halftime snacks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_to_land
He got a slap on the wrist for looking at e-mails, and a year for felony obstruction of justice (which the justice department tends to frown upon, strangely enough).
With a few caveats, I suppose I should add.
The page has to have focus. If the cursor is in the address bar, all hotkeys work as advertised.
Also, for some weird reason, while alt-F4 and ctrl-W don’t do anything, ctrl-F4 still works (it closes the tab, not the window).
It works on Firefox.
If you have trivially-bypassed locks on your house, and someone "picks" them and walks in, are they still guilty in the United States of breaking and entering?
It may depend on what state you’re in, but generally speaking, yes. In fact, even if the door wasn’t locked at all, you are “breaking and entering” if an unauthorized person opens it and enters. However, if the door was already open, you’re not breaking and entering (but you are trespassing).
“Hacking” is defined as any unauthorized access to a computer system.
He reset her password, logged into her account, and read her e-mail. His actions were unauthorized.
No, the real joke is that security types (such as the people who work for Yahoo) appear to think that security questions are actually making our accounts more secure.
Okay, that’s so unfunny that I take it back. We all know the real purpose of those questions, and it’s not to make the account more secure. It’s to cut back on the hassle of resetting people’s passwords because they can’t remember their old one.
He got a year in prison because he wiped his hard disk, which was felony obstruction of justice.
You might compare someone being charged with breaking and entering into a house, the door to which was secured with a strip of masking tape.
Someone can be charged with breaking and entering. In fact, the door doesn’t need to be locked at all. If they even just open the door, they are breaking and entering. If the door is already open, they are only trespassing unless/until they steal something.
Yeah, where’s the car analogy?
That doesn’t work at all on this webpage, though.
(Don’t use IE. No, it’s not goatse.)
If I just didn’t want to go there, I’d just adblock all links pointing me to it like I adblocked (#a(href*=goatse.)) links taking me to goatse.cx.
Naturally, because an ugly kludgy hack due to a temporary problem is always preferable to something simple and effective.
Along that line, is there a GreaseMonkey script to fix idle.slashdot.org? Backspacing over “idle.” is too easy.
Who's 'they? Assuming girls, you can like it or not, but good luck changing things.
Well, I never said I expected “them” to change because I complained.
The sexual interest is most certainly not moment to moment - they decide you're interesting in a sexual dimension or not. Once you're in the 'not' bucket (aka friend zone), good luck getting out of it.
Interest is moment-to-moment. Disinterest is more or less permanent. Something in the middle... could go either way.
Why bother with an extra WiFi dongle? Win7 comes with drivers that let you create a virtual network adapter to broadcast an access point and set up an SSID and passphrase for it, and I think Linux should have no problem doing the same. No idea about Mac OS (though it has a Linux-based core, so I don’t see why not).
Moral: Set your bookmark to "https://www.facebook.com" so that the cookie is sent via a secure connection.
That may not prevent the cookie from being allowed to be sent via an insecure connection. In which case, all the attacker has to do is pretend to be facebook and ask for it.
If the cookie can only be sent via a secure connection, they can’t do that, since the SSL certificate ensures that the server you’re talking to is actually facebook. But just because the connection is secured doesn’t mean the “secure connections only” bit in the cookie gets set.
On a WPA2 network, a user cannot eavesdrop on another user despite having the same key, because a unique handshake is performed when each user connects. Without the data that was passed in the handshake, an eavesdropper has no way of decrypting your traffic.
They can, however, force your connection to be reset, and when you reconnect they can capture the handshake. With the data that was passed in the handshake, they can decrypt all of your traffic.
I never accepted your premise that it would be "much cheaper to not have insurance" (i.e, to pay the fine instead) in the first place.
That’s not a premise, it’s a fact. According to the health care package that Obama et. al. rammed through Congress, it will be cheaper to pay the fine.
even if paying the fine has a smaller price tag than the insurance premium, you're getting no value for that money
You get no value from insurance either, unless you need it. And they can’t refuse you because of a “pre-existing” condition when you need it.
go ahead and pay the difference for the insurance, and thereby get the benefits (since the insurance would probably cover non-catastrophic medical expenses too)
And even smarter people will realise how incredibly stupid it is to get insurance for a predictable, planned expense!!
It’s a shell game. You’re just paying someone to hold onto your money for you temporarily, and they’ll take their cut of course.
Not to mention you’re helping pay the medical bills for everyone who waited until they had some catastrophic illness before they bought insurance!
Chuck Norris isn’t an internet meme. The internet is a Chuck Norris meme.
all that shows to me is that the fine is too low. Raise it until getting insurance is cheaper and you've solved the problem!
Whoopdefuckingdo. You apparently are smarter than all the democrats in congress, and the president too. Why don’t you tell them instead of posting your theories on slashdot?
If ovaries needed to be kept cool, they would be located in a bag between the legs. Sort of like testicles.
29 young men (!)
Yeah, I was surprised too. I totally expected them to use young women for the test.