Kleinrock said he predicted in 1969 that the small network would eventually expand across the globe, making a vast amount of information accessible at any time from anywhere in the world.
"The part I missed... was that my 97-year-old mother would be on the internet today," he said.
"...and man, do I ever wish those pictures hadn't gotten onto the 'net."
The key there is "in order to steal therefrom any money or other property". Similar wording is present in virtually every state law. In other words, it's a crime if and only if you're planning to use it to break into things. In fact, the laws I've seen often lump lockpicks, crowbars, and screwdrivers (!) into the same category as "potential burglary tools".
The Supreme Court commonly accepts certs for cases that they expect to affirm, simply because they see a need to set a firm precedent. It doesn't "waste their time".
True, but the point there is that Congress should explicitly legislate, not that they have. And in the absence of legislation particularly applied to electronic transmission, they're forced to delve into ugly, subjective, contradictory caselaw.
This does bring up an interesting point, however: state supreme courts commonly mandate that legislatures clarify or reword laws, but I can't recall a single instance of the SCOTUS doing this. Anyone wanna pipe up regarding this?
The catch is that this is a court of appeals. There's no way that the Supreme Court will deny the inevitable certiorari petition that the labels will be filing, which means that today's decision will quickly become moot. The court of appeals is not the appropriate venue to decide a point of law of this magnitude, and it's not going to.
Your story is an inspiration to all of us whose dislike of Big Macs is seriously impeding our ability to function as productive members of society. Power, brother.
One way or another, if it's paid for, we're going to end up paying for it. If we raise income taxes, we pay for it there; if we make the phone company do free wiretaps, we pay increased rates. The key, however, is that if police are forced to request funding through normal channels, they're less able to obscure the true extent of their funding. That, after all, is the aim of all those nickel-and-dime taxes: to spread the perceived burden.
Police say they cannot - and should not - be forced to pay the often hefty costs involved in carrying out court-approved wiretaps and message searches, warning that investigations will suffer if they are expected to pick up the tab. BS. Law enforcement is publically funded. If it's not funded enough, fine; we the voters will think about giving you more money. But making an end run around the process just because law enforcement in the new millenium is sooo expensive, thereby giving them a cash flow that actually encouragesthem to wiretap frivolously, is not an appropriate solution.
Really? I once had this guy working for me who was such a friggin' tool, he went on this weeklong crusade to find a booklet of rules to follow. Luckily, he left on his own, so I didn't have to can his ass.
Let this be a clarion call to all those Phoenix middle school students out there: Print out a photo of Jeffrey Dahmer and tape it to your backpack. Fun for the whole class!
Slashdot Mirror
"...and man, do I ever wish those pictures hadn't gotten onto the 'net."
I'm angry at people who make jokes too! Rarr!
So you think that in the future of Minority Report, HR departments are reasonable, well-organized, and responsive? It's sci-fi, man, not fantasy.
To protect an inflatable habitate, it might require a double-bubble...
Yeees... yes, I see where you're going with this. Just chew up the space station, reform it, and redeploy. Genius!
The key there is "in order to steal therefrom any money or other property". Similar wording is present in virtually every state law. In other words, it's a crime if and only if you're planning to use it to break into things. In fact, the laws I've seen often lump lockpicks, crowbars, and screwdrivers (!) into the same category as "potential burglary tools".
Whine about it for awhile longer. Then use the Wayback Machine.
Huh, I didn't know that was a viable solution. How many megawatts does he generate?
The Supreme Court commonly accepts certs for cases that they expect to affirm, simply because they see a need to set a firm precedent. It doesn't "waste their time".
True, but the point there is that Congress should explicitly legislate, not that they have. And in the absence of legislation particularly applied to electronic transmission, they're forced to delve into ugly, subjective, contradictory caselaw.
This does bring up an interesting point, however: state supreme courts commonly mandate that legislatures clarify or reword laws, but I can't recall a single instance of the SCOTUS doing this. Anyone wanna pipe up regarding this?
Exactly. Whether Betamax is to be affirmed or mitigated when applied here, it isn't appropriate for the Court of Appeals to do it.
Now put the damn flamethrower down.
The catch is that this is a court of appeals. There's no way that the Supreme Court will deny the inevitable certiorari petition that the labels will be filing, which means that today's decision will quickly become moot. The court of appeals is not the appropriate venue to decide a point of law of this magnitude, and it's not going to.
Your story is an inspiration to all of us whose dislike of Big Macs is seriously impeding our ability to function as productive members of society. Power, brother.
One way or another, if it's paid for, we're going to end up paying for it. If we raise income taxes, we pay for it there; if we make the phone company do free wiretaps, we pay increased rates. The key, however, is that if police are forced to request funding through normal channels, they're less able to obscure the true extent of their funding. That, after all, is the aim of all those nickel-and-dime taxes: to spread the perceived burden.
Police say they cannot - and should not - be forced to pay the often hefty costs involved in carrying out court-approved wiretaps and message searches, warning that investigations will suffer if they are expected to pick up the tab.
BS. Law enforcement is publically funded. If it's not funded enough, fine; we the voters will think about giving you more money. But making an end run around the process just because law enforcement in the new millenium is sooo expensive, thereby giving them a cash flow that actually encouragesthem to wiretap frivolously, is not an appropriate solution.
If I wasn't going from USC to UCLA for graduate school, I'd sock you one. Oh well. Go Bruins. ;)
Hey! That's what was missing! HUMORLESS, CRUSHING PEDANTRY! Thanks, Himring! :-)
(britney-spears)-Im-A-Teen-Idol-4-U-[password-is-b oogabooga].zips -I-Lost-My-Virgi nity-Again.zips hit-Fucking-Insa ne.zip from user "usePWasdfTOUnzip"
(britney-spears)-[pwd:googoo]-Oop
(britney-spears)-You-Drive-Me-Bat
It's napster's filename blocking all over again. The human element used to circumvent a circumstancial detection scheme.
Ya know, next time I make a username, it'll be 3.14158.... just to give guys like you coronaries.
Really? I once had this guy working for me who was such a friggin' tool, he went on this weeklong crusade to find a booklet of rules to follow. Luckily, he left on his own, so I didn't have to can his ass.
Yeah. SCO'S CLOSING BRACE. Give it back! Give it back!
Guilty as charged. I misread the OP's comment.
These are already commonly available. For awhile, they were the high end of SLR digital cameras.
How is that any different than current credit cards?
Let this be a clarion call to all those Phoenix middle school students out there: Print out a photo of Jeffrey Dahmer and tape it to your backpack. Fun for the whole class!
"most recorders store only limited information on speed, seat-belt use, physical forces, brakes and other factors."
"gives critical data about speed, breaking and seat belt use."
"Generally, all newer cars with air bags are equipped with modules that determine when the bags are deployed."
and, the piece de resistance, from your last link:
Gosh, no GPS. Funny thing. Ya don't suppose those boxes might NOT have been meant for Keeping The Man On Top(TM)?
Gosh, it's unthinkable. Quick, put the tinfoil hat back on. They's a-coming.