If these people "Didn't get caught" how would you know of said activities?
"Didn't get caught" means that nobody in authority was able to pin blame on them for it. This doesn't mean that they didn't brag about it to anyone and everyone in their peer groups (or even outside of them). "Didn't get caught" and "everyone knows" aren't mutually exclusive.
I'll bet that you were running it on some of the older P4 machines with HyperThreading. If you have HT turned on, idle processing will NEVER work right under Windows, and it will cause the types of slowdowns you saw. (I experienced the exact same thing with Folding@home when I installed it on a P4 w/ HT.)
Here's why: Hyperthreading uses a single core, but presents itself to the OS as multiple processors. If you run power-hungry software that uses 100% of the CPU time, it actually shows up to Windows as using 50% time on two processors. Add in something that runs in idle mode (like the @home programs), and they see 50% unused processor time - so they go ahead and fill up that other 50% - which puts the processor's ACTUAL usage to 200% - causing everything to run at half speed.
Yes, this is an over-simplified and not-exactly-right explanation, but it's close enough to the observed reality to suffice.
In any case, turn off hyperthreading and run it again, and you'll have no, or very little, slowdown.
I just have to love any product that will require a whole new type of work for the demolitions industry - wallpaper remover! Would the job title be Interior Undecorator, or Interior Dedecorator?
Have Verizon disable all web access from your phone. I believe you can even do it yourself through the My Verizon website.
Also, if you do end up getting charged for having accidentally hit a button, call up their billing department and explain that you hit the wrong button, and did not actually use said service - they'll usually take the charge right off.
You mean the GNU Project's definition of free software is clear on this. Not everyone agrees with their definitions.
Even on the GNU Project page that you link to, they never satisfactorily explain why source code is required for it to be considered free. They say that access to the source is required for you to "study how the program works [...] change it to make it do what you wish [...] improve the program, and release your improvements", but this is just flat out untrue. Custom made patches allow you to do both of these things, and there are numerous tools available to facilitate this; debuggers, decompilers, etc. etc.
The source code "requirement" really feels like a totally artificial addition to the entire definition, and I would say it even goes against the spirit of the idea behind Free Software - it imposes conditions upon the original coder that may not be reasonable, or even be possible: Hard drive crashes, death, or other catastrophes may cause the source code to be lost forever - but if a binary of the program still exists, and the author's intent for it to have a Free Software license is clear, why would anyone who truly believes in the concept of Free Software deny that it is Free?
The source code requirement does not even make sense in some situations; a hand-coded binary does not have any source code! According to their definition, the person writing such code would have to translate their binary into some programming language - this forcible translation makes both extra work for the programmer, and creates an inefficient (and largely pointless) version of the software.
The GNU Project's definitions betray their blind dogmatism - they have decided upon an entirely arbitrary definition and declared that it is a 100% requirement to use the term in this way... and it is a way that is pointlessly exclusionary. After all, what is source code other than an easier-to-read representation of the resulting binary? For that matter, what is a binary other than a translation of the source language (meant for one audience - humans) into a different language meant for another audience (processors)? Any differentiation between binary language and a programming language is an arbitrary one; there are many, many programming languages that run the gamut from being almost-binary (e.g. assembly) to being almost-natural (e.g. COBOL). Declaring that any such arbitrary limitation is required is absurd - it would make as much sense to claim that it's not free software unless it's written in a coding language based on one of the romance languages, or written using an ISO character encoding. (Just to head one counter argument off, namely the intended level of human readability: Binaries are not meant to be understood by humans, but source code is, and that is the difference? Well then, I guess none of this software (all written in C) can ever be considered Free Software?)
So long as the program is available for free, does not limit your use of it, allows you to make whatever changes you want to it, and allows redistribution with or without modifications, I (and most people) would consider it Free Software. Source code should be considered a heavily-encouraged option, not a requirement.(Clarification note: I do agree that free licenses should be allowed to require those who modify the code to include the modified code when they redistribute. I just don't believe that a license that doesn't require source code should be automatically disqualified from being considered Free.)
If an application is not open source, then by definition, it cannot be free software...
Sure it can.
What if someone has written a piece of software, dropped it online, and publicly stated that they give up copyright and release it into the public domain, but for some reason they did not release the source code? If it's in the public domain, that's about as "free" as software can become - not having the source may make it difficult to modify, but that hardly makes it non-free.
How about if someone coded an entire program by hand in binary? In this case there would be no "source code". Efficient, no. Possible, yes.
The same concepts would apply if any FSF license were applied to any closed-source application. As long as you're given the right to modify and distribute, that's free software by any definition, source code or no.
Trademark does not protect characters or any other artistic work. Saying "the character design is trade-marked [sic]" only shows that you do not know what trademark is.
Trademark exists only for avoiding confusion over the source of a product - the trademark protects the company that holds the trademark; the trademark does not protect the mark itself. In fact, trademarks that include art of any kind are generally copyrighted in order to protect the mark.
When Steamboat Willie comes into the public domain you get to write and publish derivatives based on the characters and story of Steamboat Willie and only Steamboat Willie. You do not get the Mouse of the Sorcerer's Apprentice. You do not get The Phantom Blot.
That all depends on what the current rulings on "derivative works" are, and how much uniqueness the derivative works bring to the character in question - if it's considered to not have changed enough, the courts can rule that it's the same character and whatever small changes there were aren't enough to invoke a new copyright. (The story of the newer work would still benefit from the copyright, and you probably couldn't explicitly reference events in it, but the character wouldn't get extended protection from the work's later date.)
Really, though, AFAIK this sort of situation has never been tested in court. Copyrighted works have been sealed up so long that everything was either out of copyright long before courts could even spell "I.P.", or are part of the mass of works waiting for The Mouse to fall into the public domain.
In fact, I don't think you CAN copyright a character (you can copyright a specific instance of one, like a comic book, a still, etc).
Wrong. Copyright law covers the artistic expression that is the character - the look, concept, etc., etc. Basically, everything that makes that character be identified as that character is covered under copyright.
You trademark characters, and trademarks don't expire so long as you actively defend them.
Wrong again. While you can trademark a character, it's generally not done since it doesn't prevent someone else from using that character in their works - trademarks are for identifying the source of goods, not for identifying the goods themselves. The usual instance where a character will be trademarked is if it's being used as a mascot, thereby preventing other companies from using same/similar mascots.
... and that's a whole different issue. Just because you've won a judgement against somebody in SCC doesn't mean they will ever pay you.
So send some debt collectors after them. There's a good chance that by this point you will even have the contact information of a collection agency local to the area...
Use your brain you fucking moron. What are you going to do if you "brandish" it and they call your bluff and still refuse to leave?
Back slowly into the house. Lock the door. Shoot them if they try to enter. Call the police.
Worse yet, what are you going to do if they make a grab for it? Shoot them? Have fun explaining to the jury why you escalated the situation to one of life and death when your life wasn't in danger to begin with.
You typically don't "brandish" a gun at someone if they're within arm's reach of you. Personally, If I aimed a gun at someone, and they still ran at / attacked me, you can bet your ass that I'd fire. If they're crazy enough to charge a man with a loaded weapon pointed at their head, they're crazy enough to make me fear for my life.
You typically won't get a ticket for an honest accident unless you were driving unsafely. Having to deal with your insurance company is usually punishment enough...
Um, don't you want to send them to the FTC? The FCC gives out fines for saying naughty words on the TV and radio, they don't deal with spammers & scammers...
I dunno. I think I'd prefer them to be dealing with my junk mail than censoring the shows I choose to watch...
The last time I checked, the colloquail definition of "transparent" means "passes visible light".Glad to know those scientists can see in the UV range - sounds like evolution is moving apace.
UV light borders the "visible light" spectrum (much like IR light does), and any material that blocks one of those ranges almost always blocks the others. Transparency in a normally non-transparent material in any one of these ranges is important for 3 reasons:
The general "visible light spectrum" term is based on the average human eye. Some animals see into the UV or IR. We can also make cameras that can pick up in the UV/IR ranges. A state of UV-only transparency would have many applications that this could be used for:
The obvious one is use in the security/spying industry. Place a UV camera behind something like this - nobody can see the camera, and might not have any idea it's even there if the material flows naturally into the design of the walls/whatever.
There are excellent applications for military/safety - a one-way mirror, without the mirror, mixed with bulletproof glass? Modify some of the IR night-vision goggles to see UV instead, and you've got the perfect windows for tanks and other armored vehicles, shield walls for riot police, etc. Or mix cameras and projectors to display an overlay of what's happening on the other side of a wall - this would be excellent for military checkpoints, prisons, etc.
If we find ways of making a material transparent to one range, we are that much closer to expanding it to make the other ranges transparent, as well as figuring out how to make other materials transparent - and those might be transparent to the "visible light" spectrum as well.
If we can adapt this and find different materials that become transparent only to certain ranges of light, the uses start to increase greatly. There would be applications for everything from sculpture to architecture to gardening to sunbathing.
fiber optic bundles have a copper core so they can be found by magnetic detectors (and the "blue stake people") to avoid being hit by a backhoe strike. It's more unlikely that the contractor failed to check for the cable than the Federal Government has special backhoe-attracting cable.
Then again, if they were trying to keep it secret, odds are they would have laid fiber without the copper core so it couldn't be found by magnetic detectors.
If their buddy asks them to rough you up, they will. Sadly, without such powers, they can't be as good against real criminals as the public wants them to be...
Being freely allowed to "rough you up" in any situation other than one where you are being physically threatening to them is NOT required for the cops to do their jobs under any circumstances. If anything, cops doing that will hinder their ability to do their jobs since the public will become scared of them and resist any interaction with them - a cop's job is easier when he has the public's trust.
Lastly, I don't think a search warrant is required to search a car...
To me, this statement just shows both how out-of-touch with the law and with the concept of civil liberties you are. Whether it's your car, your house, or your anal cavity, the police need a search warrant to go snooping around in it unless they have a damn good reason to think there's a problem. (Note that in all three cases, if you've got something obviously illegal visible to anyone just walking by, that does give them probable cause.)
while refusal to cooperate with the policeman is not in itself a probable cause, a store's complaint of theft is... The complaint will eventually prove bogus, but the police will be justified in investigating it — and stopping/detaining you in the process...
Which brings us back to my main point; the stores never actually accuse you of stealing when they demand to look in your bag. Even if they do accuse you of theft, you can adamantly refuse to let them look - only the police are empowered to do such a search.
If you want to harass the store guards, you can,
I don't want to harass store guards. But then, I don't want store guards unduly harassing me - and I do feel harassed whenever someone starts demanding to search through my stuff for no good reason. Also, I do not find it to be harassment to turn their own unreasonable demands back upon them; that's a valid method of highlighting problems in any system.
although I — being a libertarian — would rather you just don't go into a store, whose policies you disagree with.
And how exactly am I to know which stores do this? I have never heard or seen an advertisement for a store which stated they do this. I have never been stopped on my way into a store and had any of these policies explained to me before I was allowed to shop there. I have never had a cashier explain such a policy to me before taking my payment. In no situation have I ever had this policy told to me before I was done shopping and attempting to leave the store.
But you should cooperate with the official police.
Generally, yes, but it depends on what the cop wants to do: If he wants to know your name, you tell him. If he wants to search your car/home/whatever, you state that you do not consent to a search (but do not physically interfere). If he starts questioning you about a crime that you might possibly be a suspect for you shut up and demand a lawyer. In other cases use your best judgment, but always err on the side of caution.
Once you're off-site, chasing you down is not going to be the cop's first reaction - gathering evidence at the scene of the crime before putting out an APB
Actually, I believe (and would prefer it to be) the opposite.
You've never been robbed, I take it. I have, and am familiar with the procedure. The first thing the cops do (if the perp is nowhere in sight) is gather evidence, because if they don't have the evidence before they hunt down and nab the person everything found after that point is thrown out of court on the "fruit of the poisoned tree" principle.
Now, in the case of armed robbery it's different, as they'll take your statement that he had a gun seriously and consider it an imminent threat to public safety - which is considered more important than the robbery itself. In absence to a public safety threat, however, they'll be more interested in doing everything by the book so as to give the best chance for successful prosecution.
Because if you are making a bogus claim, they can just apologize to the inconvenienced person.
...and possibly be reprimanded for not following proper procedure. And possibly be suspended from duty during the investigation if a complaint/lawsuit results from it.
But if you are right — and that's more likely — then they let the robber get away, which is worse, than stopping an average person, who will, most likely, cooperate with the cop and be on his way in a few minutes...
Once the robber is away, unless he is believed to be armed and dangerous, the police are not going to engage in a high-speed chase, no matter what Michael Bay movies may make you think. They gather evidence, interview witnesses, and see if they have enough to get a search warrant.
because he himself will be sincerely convinced, you are a thief... [...] Unlike the guard at the door, the cop will have probable cause...
No, the cop will not have probable cause. "I found it suspicious he wouldn't let me search him" is still not going to stand up in court, regardless of who says it - cop, rent-a-cop, or store peon. It's going to be considered doubly bad for them since every store I've seen with those "show us your receipt on the way out the door" policies is filled with security cameras. Once you're off-site, chasing you down is not going to be the cop's first reaction - gathering evidence at the scene of the crime before putting out an APB will be... and the first thing any cop will want is copies of the video showing the crime, and if that video doesn't show one, they'll want a very good reason why they should believe there was a crime not shown on the video.
But the point here is that the stores do not legally accuse you of any such thing. They demand to search everybody who buys something from them without any evidence of wrongdoing beyond having already given them money (they don't demand to search people who didn't buy something). They also are careful to never actually accuse you of theft, as doing so can potentially open them to lawsuits if they are wrong.
If they are actually accusing you of theft, they have the right to detain you until police arrive... but it comes right back down to the fact that if their only "evidence" against you is that you wouldn't let them rifle through your personal property, they (should be) toast in the upcoming civil case for illegal detainment you bring against them.
This is why they have video cameras and undercover security staff; if they don't get it on video or have a direct eyewitness they're just asking for trouble.
My favorite tactic? When the guy at the door demands to look in your bag you demand to look in his wallet, since some of your money might be in there. After all, the door guy could have pickpocketed you on your way in, and if he's innocent, why would he have a problem with it? If he refuses, obviously that's proof that he did steal from you, right?
As far as I know (IANAL), even the policy some stores have of "checking of bags on exit is a condition of entry" is iffy. (You aren't trespassing until you refuse to have your bag checked... at which point you were exiting anyway. You might not be welcome back, but that's later.)
Unless you were made to enter a legally binding agreement before entering the store, you cannot be forced to allow them to search your property before leaving. And make no mistake, once you've paid for it, that bag and its contents are your property. Only the police, with probable cause, can search it; and no claim of "refusing to let us look is cause to look" will stand up in court.
Seriously, IBM make some of the best laptops around.
IBM doesn't make any laptops, and haven't for years. They don't even rebrand laptops as their own, anymore - they sold all rights to the ThinkPad and related names to Lenovo (who had already been making ThinkPads for years) and got out of the desktop/laptop market entirely.
As for quality, I've heard that ever since IBMs name got taken off them, the quality has gone downhill. I haven't actually bought a Lenovo recently to test this out for myself (my current laptop is one of the last IBM-branded Thinkpads released), so I don't know what their current quality actually is, but would definitely suggest you go out and look at current reviews before you buy anything - don't just go off the quality standards they had years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
If these people "Didn't get caught" how would you know of said activities?
"Didn't get caught" means that nobody in authority was able to pin blame on them for it. This doesn't mean that they didn't brag about it to anyone and everyone in their peer groups (or even outside of them). "Didn't get caught" and "everyone knows" aren't mutually exclusive.
I'll bet that you were running it on some of the older P4 machines with HyperThreading. If you have HT turned on, idle processing will NEVER work right under Windows, and it will cause the types of slowdowns you saw. (I experienced the exact same thing with Folding@home when I installed it on a P4 w/ HT.)
Here's why: Hyperthreading uses a single core, but presents itself to the OS as multiple processors. If you run power-hungry software that uses 100% of the CPU time, it actually shows up to Windows as using 50% time on two processors. Add in something that runs in idle mode (like the @home programs), and they see 50% unused processor time - so they go ahead and fill up that other 50% - which puts the processor's ACTUAL usage to 200% - causing everything to run at half speed.
Yes, this is an over-simplified and not-exactly-right explanation, but it's close enough to the observed reality to suffice.
In any case, turn off hyperthreading and run it again, and you'll have no, or very little, slowdown.
I just have to love any product that will require a whole new type of work for the demolitions industry - wallpaper remover! Would the job title be Interior Undecorator, or Interior Dedecorator?
Have Verizon disable all web access from your phone. I believe you can even do it yourself through the My Verizon website.
Also, if you do end up getting charged for having accidentally hit a button, call up their billing department and explain that you hit the wrong button, and did not actually use said service - they'll usually take the charge right off.
You mean the GNU Project's definition of free software is clear on this. Not everyone agrees with their definitions.
Even on the GNU Project page that you link to, they never satisfactorily explain why source code is required for it to be considered free. They say that access to the source is required for you to "study how the program works [...] change it to make it do what you wish [...] improve the program, and release your improvements", but this is just flat out untrue. Custom made patches allow you to do both of these things, and there are numerous tools available to facilitate this; debuggers, decompilers, etc. etc.
The source code "requirement" really feels like a totally artificial addition to the entire definition, and I would say it even goes against the spirit of the idea behind Free Software - it imposes conditions upon the original coder that may not be reasonable, or even be possible: Hard drive crashes, death, or other catastrophes may cause the source code to be lost forever - but if a binary of the program still exists, and the author's intent for it to have a Free Software license is clear, why would anyone who truly believes in the concept of Free Software deny that it is Free?
The source code requirement does not even make sense in some situations; a hand-coded binary does not have any source code! According to their definition, the person writing such code would have to translate their binary into some programming language - this forcible translation makes both extra work for the programmer, and creates an inefficient (and largely pointless) version of the software.
The GNU Project's definitions betray their blind dogmatism - they have decided upon an entirely arbitrary definition and declared that it is a 100% requirement to use the term in this way ... and it is a way that is pointlessly exclusionary. After all, what is source code other than an easier-to-read representation of the resulting binary? For that matter, what is a binary other than a translation of the source language (meant for one audience - humans) into a different language meant for another audience (processors)? Any differentiation between binary language and a programming language is an arbitrary one; there are many, many programming languages that run the gamut from being almost-binary (e.g. assembly) to being almost-natural (e.g. COBOL). Declaring that any such arbitrary limitation is required is absurd - it would make as much sense to claim that it's not free software unless it's written in a coding language based on one of the romance languages, or written using an ISO character encoding.
(Just to head one counter argument off, namely the intended level of human readability: Binaries are not meant to be understood by humans, but source code is, and that is the difference? Well then, I guess none of this software (all written in C) can ever be considered Free Software?)
So long as the program is available for free, does not limit your use of it, allows you to make whatever changes you want to it, and allows redistribution with or without modifications, I (and most people) would consider it Free Software. Source code should be considered a heavily-encouraged option, not a requirement. (Clarification note: I do agree that free licenses should be allowed to require those who modify the code to include the modified code when they redistribute. I just don't believe that a license that doesn't require source code should be automatically disqualified from being considered Free.)
If an application is not open source, then by definition, it cannot be free software...
Sure it can.
What if someone has written a piece of software, dropped it online, and publicly stated that they give up copyright and release it into the public domain, but for some reason they did not release the source code? If it's in the public domain, that's about as "free" as software can become - not having the source may make it difficult to modify, but that hardly makes it non-free.
How about if someone coded an entire program by hand in binary? In this case there would be no "source code". Efficient, no. Possible, yes.
The same concepts would apply if any FSF license were applied to any closed-source application. As long as you're given the right to modify and distribute, that's free software by any definition, source code or no.
The character design is trade-marked.
Trademark does not protect characters or any other artistic work. Saying "the character design is trade-marked [sic]" only shows that you do not know what trademark is.
Trademark exists only for avoiding confusion over the source of a product - the trademark protects the company that holds the trademark; the trademark does not protect the mark itself. In fact, trademarks that include art of any kind are generally copyrighted in order to protect the mark.
When Steamboat Willie comes into the public domain you get to write and publish derivatives based on the characters and story of Steamboat Willie and only Steamboat Willie. You do not get the Mouse of the Sorcerer's Apprentice. You do not get The Phantom Blot.
That all depends on what the current rulings on "derivative works" are, and how much uniqueness the derivative works bring to the character in question - if it's considered to not have changed enough, the courts can rule that it's the same character and whatever small changes there were aren't enough to invoke a new copyright. (The story of the newer work would still benefit from the copyright, and you probably couldn't explicitly reference events in it, but the character wouldn't get extended protection from the work's later date.)
Really, though, AFAIK this sort of situation has never been tested in court. Copyrighted works have been sealed up so long that everything was either out of copyright long before courts could even spell "I.P.", or are part of the mass of works waiting for The Mouse to fall into the public domain.
In fact, I don't think you CAN copyright a character (you can copyright a specific instance of one, like a comic book, a still, etc).
Wrong. Copyright law covers the artistic expression that is the character - the look, concept, etc., etc. Basically, everything that makes that character be identified as that character is covered under copyright.
You trademark characters, and trademarks don't expire so long as you actively defend them.
Wrong again. While you can trademark a character, it's generally not done since it doesn't prevent someone else from using that character in their works - trademarks are for identifying the source of goods, not for identifying the goods themselves. The usual instance where a character will be trademarked is if it's being used as a mascot, thereby preventing other companies from using same/similar mascots.
Has there been any examples of things that moved into public domain, but then retroactively became private again after legislation changes?
Arguably It's a Wonderful Life, although that was a judicial ruling and not a legislative change, so it depends on how you want to look at it...
Alternatively, tell them the person they're looking for is dead.
(...for added points add something along the lines of, "and my whore of a wife is next!")
then you get to play debt collector with them.
... and that's a whole different issue. Just because you've won a judgement against somebody in SCC doesn't mean they will ever pay you.
So send some debt collectors after them. There's a good chance that by this point you will even have the contact information of a collection agency local to the area...
Brandishing isn't deadly force. Shooting them is.
Use your brain you fucking moron. What are you going to do if you "brandish" it and they call your bluff and still refuse to leave?
Back slowly into the house. Lock the door. Shoot them if they try to enter. Call the police.
Worse yet, what are you going to do if they make a grab for it? Shoot them? Have fun explaining to the jury why you escalated the situation to one of life and death when your life wasn't in danger to begin with.
You typically don't "brandish" a gun at someone if they're within arm's reach of you. Personally, If I aimed a gun at someone, and they still ran at / attacked me , you can bet your ass that I'd fire. If they're crazy enough to charge a man with a loaded weapon pointed at their head, they're crazy enough to make me fear for my life.
You typically won't get a ticket for an honest accident unless you were driving unsafely. Having to deal with your insurance company is usually punishment enough...
Um, don't you want to send them to the FTC? The FCC gives out fines for saying naughty words on the TV and radio, they don't deal with spammers & scammers...
I dunno. I think I'd prefer them to be dealing with my junk mail than censoring the shows I choose to watch...
The last time I checked, the colloquail definition of "transparent" means "passes visible light".Glad to know those scientists can see in the UV range - sounds like evolution is moving apace.
UV light borders the "visible light" spectrum (much like IR light does), and any material that blocks one of those ranges almost always blocks the others. Transparency in a normally non-transparent material in any one of these ranges is important for 3 reasons:
I suppose that would depend on the song.
Maybe there's an L. Ron Hubbard cockroach... that's a fitting tribute.
Actually, it should be clams.
fiber optic bundles have a copper core so they can be found by magnetic detectors (and the "blue stake people") to avoid being hit by a backhoe strike. It's more unlikely that the contractor failed to check for the cable than the Federal Government has special backhoe-attracting cable.
Then again, if they were trying to keep it secret, odds are they would have laid fiber without the copper core so it couldn't be found by magnetic detectors.
So black dark fiber belongs to The Gooblement?
If their buddy asks them to rough you up, they will. Sadly, without such powers, they can't be as good against real criminals as the public wants them to be...
Being freely allowed to "rough you up" in any situation other than one where you are being physically threatening to them is NOT required for the cops to do their jobs under any circumstances. If anything, cops doing that will hinder their ability to do their jobs since the public will become scared of them and resist any interaction with them - a cop's job is easier when he has the public's trust.
Lastly, I don't think a search warrant is required to search a car...
To me, this statement just shows both how out-of-touch with the law and with the concept of civil liberties you are. Whether it's your car, your house, or your anal cavity, the police need a search warrant to go snooping around in it unless they have a damn good reason to think there's a problem. (Note that in all three cases, if you've got something obviously illegal visible to anyone just walking by, that does give them probable cause.)
while refusal to cooperate with the policeman is not in itself a probable cause, a store's complaint of theft is... The complaint will eventually prove bogus, but the police will be justified in investigating it — and stopping/detaining you in the process...
Which brings us back to my main point; the stores never actually accuse you of stealing when they demand to look in your bag. Even if they do accuse you of theft, you can adamantly refuse to let them look - only the police are empowered to do such a search.
If you want to harass the store guards, you can,
I don't want to harass store guards. But then, I don't want store guards unduly harassing me - and I do feel harassed whenever someone starts demanding to search through my stuff for no good reason. Also, I do not find it to be harassment to turn their own unreasonable demands back upon them; that's a valid method of highlighting problems in any system.
although I — being a libertarian — would rather you just don't go into a store, whose policies you disagree with.
And how exactly am I to know which stores do this? I have never heard or seen an advertisement for a store which stated they do this. I have never been stopped on my way into a store and had any of these policies explained to me before I was allowed to shop there. I have never had a cashier explain such a policy to me before taking my payment. In no situation have I ever had this policy told to me before I was done shopping and attempting to leave the store.
But you should cooperate with the official police.
Generally, yes, but it depends on what the cop wants to do: If he wants to know your name, you tell him. If he wants to search your car/home/whatever, you state that you do not consent to a search (but do not physically interfere). If he starts questioning you about a crime that you might possibly be a suspect for you shut up and demand a lawyer. In other cases use your best judgment, but always err on the side of caution.
Actually, I believe (and would prefer it to be) the opposite.
You've never been robbed, I take it. I have, and am familiar with the procedure. The first thing the cops do (if the perp is nowhere in sight) is gather evidence, because if they don't have the evidence before they hunt down and nab the person everything found after that point is thrown out of court on the "fruit of the poisoned tree" principle.
Now, in the case of armed robbery it's different, as they'll take your statement that he had a gun seriously and consider it an imminent threat to public safety - which is considered more important than the robbery itself. In absence to a public safety threat, however, they'll be more interested in doing everything by the book so as to give the best chance for successful prosecution.
Because if you are making a bogus claim, they can just apologize to the inconvenienced person.
...and possibly be reprimanded for not following proper procedure. And possibly be suspended from duty during the investigation if a complaint/lawsuit results from it.
But if you are right — and that's more likely — then they let the robber get away, which is worse, than stopping an average person, who will, most likely, cooperate with the cop and be on his way in a few minutes...
Once the robber is away, unless he is believed to be armed and dangerous, the police are not going to engage in a high-speed chase, no matter what Michael Bay movies may make you think. They gather evidence, interview witnesses, and see if they have enough to get a search warrant.
because he himself will be sincerely convinced, you are a thief... [...] Unlike the guard at the door, the cop will have probable cause...
No, the cop will not have probable cause. "I found it suspicious he wouldn't let me search him" is still not going to stand up in court, regardless of who says it - cop, rent-a-cop, or store peon. It's going to be considered doubly bad for them since every store I've seen with those "show us your receipt on the way out the door" policies is filled with security cameras. Once you're off-site, chasing you down is not going to be the cop's first reaction - gathering evidence at the scene of the crime before putting out an APB will be... and the first thing any cop will want is copies of the video showing the crime, and if that video doesn't show one, they'll want a very good reason why they should believe there was a crime not shown on the video.
But the point here is that the stores do not legally accuse you of any such thing. They demand to search everybody who buys something from them without any evidence of wrongdoing beyond having already given them money (they don't demand to search people who didn't buy something). They also are careful to never actually accuse you of theft, as doing so can potentially open them to lawsuits if they are wrong.
If they are actually accusing you of theft, they have the right to detain you until police arrive... but it comes right back down to the fact that if their only "evidence" against you is that you wouldn't let them rifle through your personal property, they (should be) toast in the upcoming civil case for illegal detainment you bring against them.
This is why they have video cameras and undercover security staff; if they don't get it on video or have a direct eyewitness they're just asking for trouble.
My favorite tactic? When the guy at the door demands to look in your bag you demand to look in his wallet, since some of your money might be in there. After all, the door guy could have pickpocketed you on your way in, and if he's innocent, why would he have a problem with it? If he refuses, obviously that's proof that he did steal from you, right?
As far as I know (IANAL), even the policy some stores have of "checking of bags on exit is a condition of entry" is iffy. (You aren't trespassing until you refuse to have your bag checked... at which point you were exiting anyway. You might not be welcome back, but that's later.)
Unless you were made to enter a legally binding agreement before entering the store, you cannot be forced to allow them to search your property before leaving. And make no mistake, once you've paid for it, that bag and its contents are your property. Only the police, with probable cause, can search it; and no claim of "refusing to let us look is cause to look" will stand up in court.
Seriously, IBM make some of the best laptops around.
IBM doesn't make any laptops, and haven't for years. They don't even rebrand laptops as their own, anymore - they sold all rights to the ThinkPad and related names to Lenovo (who had already been making ThinkPads for years) and got out of the desktop/laptop market entirely.
As for quality, I've heard that ever since IBMs name got taken off them, the quality has gone downhill. I haven't actually bought a Lenovo recently to test this out for myself (my current laptop is one of the last IBM-branded Thinkpads released), so I don't know what their current quality actually is, but would definitely suggest you go out and look at current reviews before you buy anything - don't just go off the quality standards they had years ago.