Rights have obligations along with them all the time. One, overused, example would be the fact that you're not allowed to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Another would be that people given classified military clearance aren't allow to express their first amendment rights by telling the secrets they know to our enemies. Personally, I don't think there should be too many of them, but long standing legal precedent says they exist. Everyone knows that guns can be dangerous if missuses and we all know that there's a chance that someone will rob our house or that a child might get access to the gun. It is, highly, reckless to not have a firearm properly secured. Is it a crime (or civilly actionable)? I don't know (as I said, IANAL) but I would be very surprised if you couldn't, at least, be found partially liable for damage done with a gun you own and didn't properly secure.
Again, IANAL, but from what little I've read of the Illinois laws on weapons I'd be, extremely, surprised if a bow wasn't considered a weapon. On top of guns and knives over X inches long, many states also have laws regarding things like saps, "sand clubs" (blackjacks), and other kinds of bludgeons. Often these laws come into play in claimed self defense situations.
For instance, in Illinois you can defend yourself with a hammer if you happen to be attacked while doing work on the house or if you are a contractor for a living and get attacked during the work day. However, if you're just a paranoid nut that carries a claw hammer around for "self defense" then my understanding of Illinois law is that it would be considered an illegal "bludgeon".
My point here is that if they have special laws regarding stuff like that, I find it very hard that they wouldn't have laws regarding bows.
Not sure about the dagger, and IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that in most places in the US you could be, successfully, sued for not properly securing your firearms. It strikes me that leaving an apartment//home unlocked when you know you have a gun in it could be construed as reckless behavior. Owning a gun is a right, but you have an obligation to practice that right in a responsible manner.
"I don't want to read this kind of stuff on Slashdot."
Then don't read it, move on to one of the many other articles that get posted here. There, problem solved, move along...
It's part of monopoly/anti-trust laws
on
Flash Is Not a Right
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
First off, IANAL but, In the US, we have anti-trust laws designed to stop companies from doing this kind of stuff. The don't, necessarily, require the company to have X% market-share before some of the laws apply. Has Apple crossed the line here? I don't know, I guess we'll find out when the recently announced legal issues resolve themselves. The point is that there are laws that limit how much a company can control what you do with a product you've purchase from them even when it comes to your future use of that product with their services. A prime example is in the automotive industry. Car makers aren't allowed to just void your warranty for not using "Ford" brand gasoline; "Ford" brand tires; "Ford" brand spark plugs; etc. They don't get to void the warranty just because you installed an after-market tail pipe or radio. From my perspective, I can see them having the right to refuse to host a Flash plug-in on the iTunes store (though, Microsoft's recent issues in the EU with providing a list of alternative browsers might suggest possible issues for Apple in the EU) but the thing I see as most contentious would be their refusal to allow anyone to install software onto the device that isn't provided through iTunes and their, active, banning of users that jailbreak their device. This is the behavior that I can see the US government/courts coming down hard on.
Technically, that isn't true. I don't know about oil spills, but I know, for a fact, that there has been, at least, one major nuclear reactor accident in the US where the reactor was being run by the US Army. That doesn't qualify as being part of the industry. And, since major nuclear accidents are pretty rare, I'd venture a guess that it represents a pretty substantial percentage of the total count. At the same time, I'd be pretty surprised if the US military/government hasn't caused, at least, one major oil spill somewhere in the world.
The nice thing about keeping a pen-and-paper copy of all your passwords is that it doesn't matter if you tell people about it online. Even in the, unlikely, event that someone who tries to hack your account happens to live in the same geographic region as you, it's unlikely that they'd be willing to escalate their criminal activity from hacking accounts to full-blown breaking-and-entering (especially if they're just hacking e-mail accounts to grief random stranger on the internet). If they're trying to make money doing identity theft, then they'll just move on to other low hanging fruit that's easier to hack.
Her stupidity has nothing to do with the e-mail issue any more than it has to do with her political positions. I may disagree with most Republican positions, but I can acknowledge that there are some very smart people on their side (I may think some of those people are evil, but that doesn't make them less intelligent). There's a famous quote that I've heard attributed to many famous, historical, Americans including Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain, it goes something like "it is better to remain seated and be thought a fool than to stand up and remove all doubt". Sarah Palin has made a point of standing up and removing all doubt numerous times since she was chosen as McCain's running mate. Whether it is the interview where she, clearly, had no clue about any of the foreign policy topics she was asked about; her attempt to use the fact that you can see part of Russia from part of Alaska (yes, I know the difference between what she really said and the Tina Fey quote, the ironic part about the two is that they aren't significantly different from each other when it comes to how idiotic they are but only one was intended as comedy).as proof that she has experience with international politics; or any one of the many, many, other examples of her saying things that, clearly, show her ignorance, I believe that she has, more than, earned her position among the ranks of the "stupid people".
It's easy enough to deal with that. Read their policies before hand. If their policy doesn't, explicitly, state that they will inventory the safe deposit box (and, especially, if their policy clearly states that they won't) then just buy a separate box just small enough to fit in the safe deposit box. Then, purchase a roll of tamper-proof stickers and use them to seal the box every time you're done messing with the contents of the box. If you ever go to check the box and find that the seal has been tampered with, raise bloody murder with the bank management, corporate, Better Business Bureau, and the state's attorney's general office.
At this point, with the vast majority of people being hacked by someone half a world away, I think you might be better of forgoing password remonders all-together (just type a long string of letters, numbers, and symbols into the answer line and forget about it) and just keeping a pen-and-paper list of sites you are registered with along with you username/password). Unless you have reason to think someone you live with might care enough to mess with you (you live in a dorm/apartment with asshole roommates; you have an older/younger sibling you don't get along with; you have a paranoid/jealous significant other; etc.) you should be fine just keeping it in a drawer somewhere.
Personally, I don't see the idea of either of them having their accounts hacked as a sign of stupidity. We all know that sites like that aren't 100% secure (not that any system ever is and to say nothing of the fact that Obama, almost certainly, has never, personally, handled the management of his twitter account) and that both of them are prime targets to be hacked by hackers who aren't bright enough to think about how stupid it is to hack the e-mail account of someone protected by the FBI/Secret Service/NSA/CIA/etc. just "4 t3h lulz". For that reason, I completely agree with suggesting that David Kernell is a moron. Sarah Paling, on the other hand, has more than ample evidence compiled against her to condemn her as a complete imbecile long before the issue of having her e-mail account hacked comes into the picture.
Yes, Palin only said that you could see Russia from Alaska, which is only a hair less idiotic when you consider that she was trying to claim that as a reason for why she has experience in international politics. Most people don't differentiate because both comments are so idiotic that there isn't a difference worth caring about.
As long as the state law doesn't attempt to over-ride something said in a federal law, they are perfectly within their right to pass it and shouldn't have to take into account whether or not the federal government is being incompetent with implementing their policies. Again, if we want this kind of thing not to happen (which it shouldn't, then we should be screaming bloody murder to our federal representatives to get it fixed). Consequently, this may, potentially, cause him an inconvenience should he end up in Arizona without proper paperwork having been processed but, in the end, he should be released once the government finally acknowledges that the paperwork is being processed. If the law really doesn't take that into account then it would be reasonable, and completely possible, for a judge to strike down the law's ability to apply to such people without having to negate the entire law's effect that are, legitimately (pun intended), here illegitimately.
There's still time for them to pass such a law. I think one of the reasons why they focused on this law was that there is a very controversial local sheriff in Arizona (I think his name is Arroyo, or something similar) who was trying to have his department enforce federal immigration law themselves but were running into legal roadblocks that this law, apparently, eliminates.
Except that that isn't the subject of this thread. The original poster I was responding to isn't an illegal alien. He's a legal immigrant who is in the unfortunate situation of, potentially, being caught between this law and the incompetently operated federal legal immigration system. Instead of focusing all his anger where, I believe, it belongs (on the feds and congress responsible for miss-managing the program) he's blaming the state.
Ironically, though I seem to be agreeing with them on this one issue, I'm pretty far from being a teabagger. I, actually, think that the Obama administration has been doing a pretty good job trying to deal with a difficult economic/political/geopolitical situation and I don't believe that all government run programs are, inherently, more corrupt and less efficient than ones run by big industry. All that said, I can still call a spade a spade and say that the federal program for legal immigration is horribly run/funded. I'm a full supporter of deporting all illegal immigrants from the U.S. as I don't believe that people who, knowingly, broke our laws should even be considered for resident status/citizenship. However, I'm also a big fan of fixing legal immigration and expanding it greatly.
Running with your off-topic post, I may not agree that they are the only people we should target with our anger (people that sneak across our border know that they are breaking our laws and are committing a pre-meditated crime) but I agree that much of the blame can be shared by the employers. Personally, I look at them as a, largely de-facto, criminal cartel that works to encourage criminal behavior by knowingly hiring people who are here illegally.
No, Arizona has no control over how poorly the federal government is doing their job and, as such, has no responsibility to not do something they feel necessary in order to compensate for it. If you continue to coddle incompetence, it never gets fixed.
Consumer agencies aren't bad, but a better group to focus on, at least in the U.S., are the state district attorneys. Most states have laws criminalizing bait-and-switch tactics. You don't get to sell a product claiming it can do functions X, Y, and Z then fix it so it can't do function Z long after you've been paid. Criminal charges would take the issue to a whole new level and could set a clear legal precedent that this kind of crap is unacceptable. State attorneys general, also, tend to be young, ambitious, politicians looking to make a name for themselves by taking on cases that are highly publicly visible and populist. If you can convince one, if not a large number, of states to go after Sony with criminal charges they'll be much hotter under the collar.
Honestly, perhaps you should re-direct that anger to the people that have, actually, earned it (a.k.a. the Federal immigrations officials responsible for the back-log and the congressmen/women who haven't bothered to fund them adequately). If they were doing their job right, you wouldn't be having problems.
Slashdot Mirror
My previous post aside, I too agree that the court decision is BS. There is a world of difference between a gun and Wi-fi access.
Rights have obligations along with them all the time. One, overused, example would be the fact that you're not allowed to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Another would be that people given classified military clearance aren't allow to express their first amendment rights by telling the secrets they know to our enemies. Personally, I don't think there should be too many of them, but long standing legal precedent says they exist. Everyone knows that guns can be dangerous if missuses and we all know that there's a chance that someone will rob our house or that a child might get access to the gun. It is, highly, reckless to not have a firearm properly secured. Is it a crime (or civilly actionable)? I don't know (as I said, IANAL) but I would be very surprised if you couldn't, at least, be found partially liable for damage done with a gun you own and didn't properly secure.
Again, IANAL, but from what little I've read of the Illinois laws on weapons I'd be, extremely, surprised if a bow wasn't considered a weapon. On top of guns and knives over X inches long, many states also have laws regarding things like saps, "sand clubs" (blackjacks), and other kinds of bludgeons. Often these laws come into play in claimed self defense situations.
For instance, in Illinois you can defend yourself with a hammer if you happen to be attacked while doing work on the house or if you are a contractor for a living and get attacked during the work day. However, if you're just a paranoid nut that carries a claw hammer around for "self defense" then my understanding of Illinois law is that it would be considered an illegal "bludgeon".
My point here is that if they have special laws regarding stuff like that, I find it very hard that they wouldn't have laws regarding bows.
I would, also, say that.
Well, it makes sense. Once it got down to one page it would be so useless that it wouldn't be notable any more.
Heh, if there were anything close to resembling, actual, content in your post maybe you'd be worth paying attention to.
Not sure about the dagger, and IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that in most places in the US you could be, successfully, sued for not properly securing your firearms. It strikes me that leaving an apartment//home unlocked when you know you have a gun in it could be construed as reckless behavior. Owning a gun is a right, but you have an obligation to practice that right in a responsible manner.
Yea..... Get back to me when he, actually, says something like that. Until then, I'm using my freedom of speech to suggest that you're paranoid.
"I don't want to read this kind of stuff on Slashdot."
Then don't read it, move on to one of the many other articles that get posted here. There, problem solved, move along...
First off, IANAL but, In the US, we have anti-trust laws designed to stop companies from doing this kind of stuff. The don't, necessarily, require the company to have X% market-share before some of the laws apply. Has Apple crossed the line here? I don't know, I guess we'll find out when the recently announced legal issues resolve themselves. The point is that there are laws that limit how much a company can control what you do with a product you've purchase from them even when it comes to your future use of that product with their services. A prime example is in the automotive industry. Car makers aren't allowed to just void your warranty for not using "Ford" brand gasoline; "Ford" brand tires; "Ford" brand spark plugs; etc. They don't get to void the warranty just because you installed an after-market tail pipe or radio. From my perspective, I can see them having the right to refuse to host a Flash plug-in on the iTunes store (though, Microsoft's recent issues in the EU with providing a list of alternative browsers might suggest possible issues for Apple in the EU) but the thing I see as most contentious would be their refusal to allow anyone to install software onto the device that isn't provided through iTunes and their, active, banning of users that jailbreak their device. This is the behavior that I can see the US government/courts coming down hard on.
Technically, that isn't true. I don't know about oil spills, but I know, for a fact, that there has been, at least, one major nuclear reactor accident in the US where the reactor was being run by the US Army. That doesn't qualify as being part of the industry. And, since major nuclear accidents are pretty rare, I'd venture a guess that it represents a pretty substantial percentage of the total count. At the same time, I'd be pretty surprised if the US military/government hasn't caused, at least, one major oil spill somewhere in the world.
It looks, to me, like the only way to deal with this would be for the courts to declare the contract unreasonably broad.
The nice thing about keeping a pen-and-paper copy of all your passwords is that it doesn't matter if you tell people about it online. Even in the, unlikely, event that someone who tries to hack your account happens to live in the same geographic region as you, it's unlikely that they'd be willing to escalate their criminal activity from hacking accounts to full-blown breaking-and-entering (especially if they're just hacking e-mail accounts to grief random stranger on the internet). If they're trying to make money doing identity theft, then they'll just move on to other low hanging fruit that's easier to hack.
Her stupidity has nothing to do with the e-mail issue any more than it has to do with her political positions. I may disagree with most Republican positions, but I can acknowledge that there are some very smart people on their side (I may think some of those people are evil, but that doesn't make them less intelligent). There's a famous quote that I've heard attributed to many famous, historical, Americans including Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain, it goes something like "it is better to remain seated and be thought a fool than to stand up and remove all doubt". Sarah Palin has made a point of standing up and removing all doubt numerous times since she was chosen as McCain's running mate. Whether it is the interview where she, clearly, had no clue about any of the foreign policy topics she was asked about; her attempt to use the fact that you can see part of Russia from part of Alaska (yes, I know the difference between what she really said and the Tina Fey quote, the ironic part about the two is that they aren't significantly different from each other when it comes to how idiotic they are but only one was intended as comedy).as proof that she has experience with international politics; or any one of the many, many, other examples of her saying things that, clearly, show her ignorance, I believe that she has, more than, earned her position among the ranks of the "stupid people".
It's easy enough to deal with that. Read their policies before hand. If their policy doesn't, explicitly, state that they will inventory the safe deposit box (and, especially, if their policy clearly states that they won't) then just buy a separate box just small enough to fit in the safe deposit box. Then, purchase a roll of tamper-proof stickers and use them to seal the box every time you're done messing with the contents of the box. If you ever go to check the box and find that the seal has been tampered with, raise bloody murder with the bank management, corporate, Better Business Bureau, and the state's attorney's general office.
At this point, with the vast majority of people being hacked by someone half a world away, I think you might be better of forgoing password remonders all-together (just type a long string of letters, numbers, and symbols into the answer line and forget about it) and just keeping a pen-and-paper list of sites you are registered with along with you username/password). Unless you have reason to think someone you live with might care enough to mess with you (you live in a dorm/apartment with asshole roommates; you have an older/younger sibling you don't get along with; you have a paranoid/jealous significant other; etc.) you should be fine just keeping it in a drawer somewhere.
Personally, I don't see the idea of either of them having their accounts hacked as a sign of stupidity. We all know that sites like that aren't 100% secure (not that any system ever is and to say nothing of the fact that Obama, almost certainly, has never, personally, handled the management of his twitter account) and that both of them are prime targets to be hacked by hackers who aren't bright enough to think about how stupid it is to hack the e-mail account of someone protected by the FBI/Secret Service/NSA/CIA/etc. just "4 t3h lulz". For that reason, I completely agree with suggesting that David Kernell is a moron. Sarah Paling, on the other hand, has more than ample evidence compiled against her to condemn her as a complete imbecile long before the issue of having her e-mail account hacked comes into the picture.
Yes, Palin only said that you could see Russia from Alaska, which is only a hair less idiotic when you consider that she was trying to claim that as a reason for why she has experience in international politics. Most people don't differentiate because both comments are so idiotic that there isn't a difference worth caring about.
Ah, but which Moby dick are you referring to? The original, or this one
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/1/15/
As long as the state law doesn't attempt to over-ride something said in a federal law, they are perfectly within their right to pass it and shouldn't have to take into account whether or not the federal government is being incompetent with implementing their policies. Again, if we want this kind of thing not to happen (which it shouldn't, then we should be screaming bloody murder to our federal representatives to get it fixed). Consequently, this may, potentially, cause him an inconvenience should he end up in Arizona without proper paperwork having been processed but, in the end, he should be released once the government finally acknowledges that the paperwork is being processed. If the law really doesn't take that into account then it would be reasonable, and completely possible, for a judge to strike down the law's ability to apply to such people without having to negate the entire law's effect that are, legitimately (pun intended), here illegitimately.
There's still time for them to pass such a law. I think one of the reasons why they focused on this law was that there is a very controversial local sheriff in Arizona (I think his name is Arroyo, or something similar) who was trying to have his department enforce federal immigration law themselves but were running into legal roadblocks that this law, apparently, eliminates.
Except that that isn't the subject of this thread. The original poster I was responding to isn't an illegal alien. He's a legal immigrant who is in the unfortunate situation of, potentially, being caught between this law and the incompetently operated federal legal immigration system. Instead of focusing all his anger where, I believe, it belongs (on the feds and congress responsible for miss-managing the program) he's blaming the state.
Ironically, though I seem to be agreeing with them on this one issue, I'm pretty far from being a teabagger. I, actually, think that the Obama administration has been doing a pretty good job trying to deal with a difficult economic/political/geopolitical situation and I don't believe that all government run programs are, inherently, more corrupt and less efficient than ones run by big industry. All that said, I can still call a spade a spade and say that the federal program for legal immigration is horribly run/funded. I'm a full supporter of deporting all illegal immigrants from the U.S. as I don't believe that people who, knowingly, broke our laws should even be considered for resident status/citizenship. However, I'm also a big fan of fixing legal immigration and expanding it greatly.
Running with your off-topic post, I may not agree that they are the only people we should target with our anger (people that sneak across our border know that they are breaking our laws and are committing a pre-meditated crime) but I agree that much of the blame can be shared by the employers. Personally, I look at them as a, largely de-facto, criminal cartel that works to encourage criminal behavior by knowingly hiring people who are here illegally.
No, Arizona has no control over how poorly the federal government is doing their job and, as such, has no responsibility to not do something they feel necessary in order to compensate for it. If you continue to coddle incompetence, it never gets fixed.
Consumer agencies aren't bad, but a better group to focus on, at least in the U.S., are the state district attorneys. Most states have laws criminalizing bait-and-switch tactics. You don't get to sell a product claiming it can do functions X, Y, and Z then fix it so it can't do function Z long after you've been paid. Criminal charges would take the issue to a whole new level and could set a clear legal precedent that this kind of crap is unacceptable. State attorneys general, also, tend to be young, ambitious, politicians looking to make a name for themselves by taking on cases that are highly publicly visible and populist. If you can convince one, if not a large number, of states to go after Sony with criminal charges they'll be much hotter under the collar.
-Shawn
Honestly, perhaps you should re-direct that anger to the people that have, actually, earned it (a.k.a. the Federal immigrations officials responsible for the back-log and the congressmen/women who haven't bothered to fund them adequately). If they were doing their job right, you wouldn't be having problems.