Well, if there's a chance he might be packing, then a public location for a confrontation would be contrary to the interests of public safety. It's also a lot harder to control - more chance of hostages, more people blundering into the line of fire by mistake, etc.
He was at a conference, so presumably they weren't worried about witness tampering. In addition, he was more than likely nowhere near any witnesses.
Witness tampering doesn't require you to be there in person. I'm sure a smart private eye could accomplish more with a cell phone and an Internet connection than they could in person, anyway. If you really are concerned about that, you want the person incommunicado pronto. You probably also don't want that person digging up more info on other witnesses in the case, since presumably that was their goal to begin with.
We have absolutely no indication he was snagged 'in public', or, at least, anywhere near a crowd of people. None at all. This is just something you made up. It is equally likely that they simply waited outside the stage door and arrested him when he showed up.
It's hardly "made up" - if you read the article, he was at a conference. Where do you normally find lots of people in public places? The mall, church, school, *conferences*. Are you honestly arguing that a conference, with a talk about to begin in five minutes, is not a public place with a lot of people around?
Your previous quote:
Openly approaching someone at a conference, where it can take quite some time to find someone and there are all those people around, would be completely irresponsible behavior.
My point is that's what they did - they approached him at a conference, with a lot of people standing around, in a situation that was impossible to really secure. Your statement that "They waited for him somewhere he was due to be, and then arrested him when he showed up." is true, but does not refute the logical contradiction between your previous statement and the known facts, which is what I was pointing out.
As far whether it's better to wait and grab, or actively seek out the person, clearly that varies by case. In the case of financial crimes that aren't ongoing, you don't seem to lose much by waiting a day. But in the case of active witness tampering, where any further contact might harm the case even more, and where the suspect is very knowledgeable about law enforcement techniques and could easily destroy evidence or flee, it seems unlikely to me that you would want to wait.
Being on a "watch list" is worse than being an accused (but innocent) criminal, since there's no formal way to challenge that status. The quote seems apt to me.
[quote]Openly approaching someone at a conference, where it can take quite some time to find someone and there are all those people around, would be completely irresponsible behavior.[/quote] I don't understand the point you're making, since this is of course exactly what they did.
I think the timing is still not very realistic. If it's worthwhile to apprehend him quickly, grab him at home in the morning, or something like that. Particularly for something communication-related and time sensitive like witness tampering, wouldn't you want to grab a person sooner rather than later, in order to prohibit any further illegal communications.
I don't buy the "snag 'em in public" theory either - I'd be a lot more confident in my ability to disappear in a crowded location, rather than early in the morning at home or something like that.
Either the timing of the arrest really was related to what he was about to discuss (i.e. perhaps one of his slides related to finding the very witness in question?), or the timing was done in order to produce a show of government force in front of a group of citizens that the FBI distrusts. The first reason would be legitimate in my book, but the second is not.
Usually when I see someone with a long involved windup like that, they don't have any actual content to impart. Sadly, that was the case with this one as well.
Exactly which other game manufacturers DO permit use of unofficial pieces in their sanctioned events? I'm not thinking of any right now. I don't know why you're so surprised about that turn of events.
I think the timing of the arrest was plenty of reason to be concerned about the FBI's motives. If this guy was arrested for something entirely unrelated to the talk, it makes no sense to arrest him five minutes before his presentation. Either get him at his home in the morning, at his office, at the convention first thing in the day, or whenever.
It's pretty funny that everyone was quick to assume the best about the arrestee the other day, on the basis if very limited information, but today everyone is equally quick to assume the worst, based on only slightly less limited information. The truth is likely somewhere in between - neither knee-jerk reaction will have been 100% correct.
I think it's going to be considerably less costly to rework email a little in order to stop spammers, than it is going to be to throw out the whole kit and kaboodle and start over.
I am very nervous when someone starts talking about reimplenting something that's one of the core parts of the Internet. To me that sounds like a golden opportunity for privatization and control of the network. We would give up more than we would receive in that scenario.
I get plenty of people that try to retract their email; I can only assume it's not working since I'm not using Outlook like they are. Retracting an email seems kind of 1984-ish to me; I'm not sure we want to encourage that sort of behavior. And don't even get me started on read receipts (yuck).
Actually, the issue is that copyright exists at all. I think many free software authors in the Stallman mold would argue against any right to own software code at all. The GPL was devised as a "copyleft" in order to support the cause of truly free software, within the strictures of the existing legal system.
If copyright vanished tomorrow, no one could take away your work and exploit it, since you could simply take back what they had built on top of your stuff, and exploit it even further yourself. Copyright law prevents you from taking your stuff back in that case, so the GPL was set up in order to prevent the exploitation in the first place.
Microsoft can't submit the Word format because they themselves do not have the complete spec to it. Parts of it are (or were, at least) in-memory structures dumped to files, etc. It's totally nonportable and inexplicable, so clearly standardization is not their friend.
I'm not sure this is really much of a finding
on
Slacker or Sick
·
· Score: 1
I have rats, and let me tell you: they curl up into a ball and fall asleep at pretty much any time. Drink from water bottle, take a nap. Go get some food, take a nap. Vigorous grooming, then take a nap.
People were driving 40+ MPG vehicles in the 1970s; there's no reason that this can't be done again. Regardless of the propaganda you see on TV, 30 MPG is not actually some kind of really high MPG rating. In fact, it's abysmal.
The DVD CCA is trying to have it both ways - not patenting the information up front, but then relying on the government for IP protection after the cat's out of the bag. Their doctrine of some trade secrets being "unlawfully exposed" is contrary to the intent of the Constitution, even if it appears to have been somewhat supported by recent legal decisions.
Trade secrets should have no standing for protection in court IMHO; if you want your ideas protected, you should have to patent or copyright them so that the public eventually receives some benefit from them. The perversion of trade secrets is requiring the government to defend trade secrets, with no eventual release into the public domain to pay for the costs of that defense. It's a corporate handout, pure and simple.
That was a little harsh, wasn't it? The submitter wasn't stating that the blue dye was HCN; you just read that into his words and got cranky about it. For all you know his CD-Rs aren't even the blue-dye kind. Perhaps you routinely hear some lame urban legend about confusion between HCN and cyanine, but that doesn't mean that everyone who asks about "almonds" and something blue is similarly confused and needs to be chastised as "spreading misinformation".
Versus assuming that a collection of flesh and bone pretending to be you is actually a being capable of experiencing existence? Are you sure you really exist?
2.4.20 also fixes some USB mass storage issues - I was having problems with my memory stick reader, for example. It was really confusing because I had 2.4.20 on my old Mandrake system before upgrading to RH8, and hadn't noticed that I effectively got a kernel *downgrade* in the process. RH8 is pretty, but I'm still deciding if I like some of the other redhat-isms associated.
Exactly - I think we're missing the big picture here. Economists are seeing a 5 to 10 year recession looming on the horizon, and we're worried about email privacy? We should be taking to the streets.
Frankly, I'm not losing much sleep over the dissemination of private email in this case. I'm a lot more concerned that a journalist was willing to sit on the more interesting details for the official account, and only dish the real info to "friends and confidantes". Frankly, if she never sends another email, that's OK, because her just sending them to friends doesn't help anything, doesn't fulfill any journalistic service at all. It's only when this kind of thing is made public that real change can occur. If she doesn't want to be part of that, that's OK, but she should quit whining about it. Either do your job, or don't complain when other people do it for you.
Thank god Woodward and Bernstein didn't feel this way (yes, I know it wasn't the same situation).
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if there's a chance he might be packing, then a public location for a confrontation would be contrary to the interests of public safety. It's also a lot harder to control - more chance of hostages, more people blundering into the line of fire by mistake, etc.
Your previous quote:
My point is that's what they did - they approached him at a conference, with a lot of people standing around, in a situation that was impossible to really secure. Your statement that "They waited for him somewhere he was due to be, and then arrested him when he showed up." is true, but does not refute the logical contradiction between your previous statement and the known facts, which is what I was pointing out.As far whether it's better to wait and grab, or actively seek out the person, clearly that varies by case. In the case of financial crimes that aren't ongoing, you don't seem to lose much by waiting a day. But in the case of active witness tampering, where any further contact might harm the case even more, and where the suspect is very knowledgeable about law enforcement techniques and could easily destroy evidence or flee, it seems unlikely to me that you would want to wait.
Being on a "watch list" is worse than being an accused (but innocent) criminal, since there's no formal way to challenge that status. The quote seems apt to me.
[quote]Openly approaching someone at a conference, where it can take quite some time to find someone and there are all those people around, would be completely irresponsible behavior.[/quote]
I don't understand the point you're making, since this is of course exactly what they did.
I think the timing is still not very realistic. If it's worthwhile to apprehend him quickly, grab him at home in the morning, or something like that. Particularly for something communication-related and time sensitive like witness tampering, wouldn't you want to grab a person sooner rather than later, in order to prohibit any further illegal communications.
I don't buy the "snag 'em in public" theory either - I'd be a lot more confident in my ability to disappear in a crowded location, rather than early in the morning at home or something like that.
Either the timing of the arrest really was related to what he was about to discuss (i.e. perhaps one of his slides related to finding the very witness in question?), or the timing was done in order to produce a show of government force in front of a group of citizens that the FBI distrusts. The first reason would be legitimate in my book, but the second is not.
Exactly.
Usually when I see someone with a long involved windup like that, they don't have any actual content to impart. Sadly, that was the case with this one as well.
Exactly which other game manufacturers DO permit use of unofficial pieces in their sanctioned events? I'm not thinking of any right now. I don't know why you're so surprised about that turn of events.
"All about staying in business" is more like it.
I think the timing of the arrest was plenty of reason to be concerned about the FBI's motives. If this guy was arrested for something entirely unrelated to the talk, it makes no sense to arrest him five minutes before his presentation. Either get him at his home in the morning, at his office, at the convention first thing in the day, or whenever.
It's pretty funny that everyone was quick to assume the best about the arrestee the other day, on the basis if very limited information, but today everyone is equally quick to assume the worst, based on only slightly less limited information. The truth is likely somewhere in between - neither knee-jerk reaction will have been 100% correct.
I think it's going to be considerably less costly to rework email a little in order to stop spammers, than it is going to be to throw out the whole kit and kaboodle and start over.
I am very nervous when someone starts talking about reimplenting something that's one of the core parts of the Internet. To me that sounds like a golden opportunity for privatization and control of the network. We would give up more than we would receive in that scenario.
I'm sorry, but that headline makes me think of:
"HELP HOWLS OUT NOW"
Hopefully I'm not the only one.
I get plenty of people that try to retract their email; I can only assume it's not working since I'm not using Outlook like they are. Retracting an email seems kind of 1984-ish to me; I'm not sure we want to encourage that sort of behavior. And don't even get me started on read receipts (yuck).
I think you answered your own question.
Actually, the issue is that copyright exists at all. I think many free software authors in the Stallman mold would argue against any right to own software code at all. The GPL was devised as a "copyleft" in order to support the cause of truly free software, within the strictures of the existing legal system. If copyright vanished tomorrow, no one could take away your work and exploit it, since you could simply take back what they had built on top of your stuff, and exploit it even further yourself. Copyright law prevents you from taking your stuff back in that case, so the GPL was set up in order to prevent the exploitation in the first place.
Well, by that bulldozer at least. Just like lions, there are always more of an ecosystem's top predator.
Microsoft can't submit the Word format because they themselves do not have the complete spec to it. Parts of it are (or were, at least) in-memory structures dumped to files, etc. It's totally nonportable and inexplicable, so clearly standardization is not their friend.
I have rats, and let me tell you: they curl up into a ball and fall asleep at pretty much any time. Drink from water bottle, take a nap. Go get some food, take a nap. Vigorous grooming, then take a nap.
People were driving 40+ MPG vehicles in the 1970s; there's no reason that this can't be done again. Regardless of the propaganda you see on TV, 30 MPG is not actually some kind of really high MPG rating. In fact, it's abysmal.
Bwahaha!!
I buy my Kit Kat's at 7-11, that's not really "specialty".
The DVD CCA is trying to have it both ways - not patenting the information up front, but then relying on the government for IP protection after the cat's out of the bag. Their doctrine of some trade secrets being "unlawfully exposed" is contrary to the intent of the Constitution, even if it appears to have been somewhat supported by recent legal decisions.
Trade secrets should have no standing for protection in court IMHO; if you want your ideas protected, you should have to patent or copyright them so that the public eventually receives some benefit from them. The perversion of trade secrets is requiring the government to defend trade secrets, with no eventual release into the public domain to pay for the costs of that defense. It's a corporate handout, pure and simple.
A car in your home usually means your brakes are no good :)
That was a little harsh, wasn't it? The submitter wasn't stating that the blue dye was HCN; you just read that into his words and got cranky about it. For all you know his CD-Rs aren't even the blue-dye kind. Perhaps you routinely hear some lame urban legend about confusion between HCN and cyanine, but that doesn't mean that everyone who asks about "almonds" and something blue is similarly confused and needs to be chastised as "spreading misinformation".
Versus assuming that a collection of flesh and bone pretending to be you is actually a being capable of experiencing existence? Are you sure you really exist?
2.4.20 also fixes some USB mass storage issues - I was having problems with my memory stick reader, for example. It was really confusing because I had 2.4.20 on my old Mandrake system before upgrading to RH8, and hadn't noticed that I effectively got a kernel *downgrade* in the process. RH8 is pretty, but I'm still deciding if I like some of the other redhat-isms associated.
Exactly - I think we're missing the big picture here. Economists are seeing a 5 to 10 year recession looming on the horizon, and we're worried about email privacy? We should be taking to the streets.
Frankly, I'm not losing much sleep over the dissemination of private email in this case. I'm a lot more concerned that a journalist was willing to sit on the more interesting details for the official account, and only dish the real info to "friends and confidantes". Frankly, if she never sends another email, that's OK, because her just sending them to friends doesn't help anything, doesn't fulfill any journalistic service at all. It's only when this kind of thing is made public that real change can occur. If she doesn't want to be part of that, that's OK, but she should quit whining about it. Either do your job, or don't complain when other people do it for you.
Thank god Woodward and Bernstein didn't feel this way (yes, I know it wasn't the same situation).
Dammit, why'd you have to start the my-uid-is-shorter contest again? :)