Question: How does the field agent know what is evidence and what isn't? I guess you'd like to make sure that all FBI agents are also fully trained as sysadmins for every OS/Harware combo known to man.
THe feds seized the equipment because it might be evidence and they have no way to know for sure without running it through a computer forensics lab.
The real travesty will be trying to get the equipment back after he is no loger a suspect.
get too thick, I would like to point out that your average FBI field agent is clueless when it comes to computers. They are there to get a statement, and grab anything that remotely looks like evidence. Frankly, I'm surprised that they gave the guy back his box of junk parts.
The reason they grab everything is that unless proper forensic analysis is done on a computer, it is possible to innocently overwrite what was up to that point evidence. FBI field agents know this sort of thing look very bad on their records.
Now, assuming the original poster is innocent, his problem will be getting his stuff back from the feds after they decide he is not a suspect and anytime before the case goes to trial. If you want more information, click one of the links to the Hacker Crackdown that are destined to appear shortly (if they haven't already).
Which is why I'm against matching funds as well. It's the same damn thing, politicians picking the pockets of the people.
"Nader is also for opening up the airwaves for less corporate programming and more free community access which will allow non-millionaires to get their voice heard and give the 1 million crowd equal time so we can have a real debate."
free community access? Do you think anyone would actually watch? How much community access do you think people watch on cable (where available)? How much do you think people watch PBS? I guess Nader is for forced viewing too? Is he going to make sure we all have govt approved TVs?
People like that are just scary. Govt is not the answer, never has been the answer and never will be the answer.
But at least you're willing to make a decision and presumably vote. I'll give you props for that.
I have to clear up this stupid misconception. Just because someone opts to send their children to private school does not mean they are rich. Actually, in my church, we help parents pay for private school if they need the help. I know several families that would be considered poor to lower middle class that send their kids to private school (most without our churches help) because they realize the value of a good education that's concerned less with how Johnny feels about himself and more with how well Johnny can think.
The whole bit about subsidizing private schools being transfer of wealth ot the wealthy is a bunch of bull.
Also, don't forget that a lot of private schools are against this plan because they know that as soon as they accept govt funds, then the govt and teachers unions will step in and try and make them just as bad as a govt run school.
Frankly, I don't think govt has any place in education whatsoever.
Sorry, but wouldn't publicly funded elections merely make the current govt administration the masters? Are you sure you really want the govt to decide who gets funding so they can run for office?
I'd much rather just see a very modest cap put on all election spending. Say 1 Million. Then we could see which candidate was better at budgeting their money.
Perhaps he should get a chance first. Actually given Bush's people skills I'd say he would probably do better. Also, are you going to vote for Gore's idiotic knowledge of what a logarithm is? Get real.
You neglect to mention that the stupid environmental policies also affect poor people too. Case in point, when I was very young my father dug a pond on our land. Several years ago we decided to sell off parts of the land to people wanting to build houses, and decided to fill in the pond so we could sell the half acre it was on as well. Guess what. We couldn't. Permit (what I have to get a permit to move dirt on my own property?) denied. Our man made pond is now considered part of the natural wet lands. So I guess we have to stay (relatively) poor. Hmm, maybe if the govt passed some more laws restricting our freedoms they could force us to depend on them for everything...naw they wouldn't want to do that would they?
I guess you could say a hidden plank of the greens and the dems is "the only good landholder is the govt", "the only good space is govt mandated space", and "cut down babies, not trees!".
Sheesh, both the major parties are in it for one thing. POWER. The only difference that I can see is that the republicans aren't so keen to lord it over the rest of us. And Nader can be pretty well summed up by the phrase "Nanny State".
How about limiting the FEDERAL govt to the powers granted to it in the US Constitution? Leave the rest to the states and the locals, the way the founders meant it to be.
Maybe those age limitations were put in to keep people from trying to do revolutionary genius level work on the govt itself. Idealistic fanaticism may work great for small groups, but seems to be less than ideal when applied to a nation.
Perhaps the lack of totally blinding idealism is wisdom.
Or I could tell you that the US isn't a democracy. I could also tell you that if your countries leaders feel a need to follow US laws, then perhaps you should try and fix things at home.
Frankly, there are plenty of US citizens that wish the world would go do it's own thing and leave us the hell alone. If your leaders decided not to blindly follow the US's lead, that would be just dandy with me.
Okay, sorry forgot how little sarcasm get's through, but actually I didn't read all of it. I just read the blurb and enough of it to see that they were all just reposts of responses to one of Katz's previous articles (which I did read).
[sarcasm] Obviously I can't look cool on slashdot, you can't see me!.....Can you?[/sarcasm]
Katz doesn't even bother to write anymore, he just takes random responses to his previous writings and then posts those. But then, I don't bother to read Katz anymore, I just take previous writings of his and randomly respond.
That's what they do where I work. We're on salary with no such thing as paid overtime. We work around the situation by prioritizing calls. There are some things that will simply wait until the next business day and e-mail is usually one of those. If we can fix it over the phone or via dial in, great. If not, we'll get it first thing tommorow.
Also, the job market being what it is right now, you can always either demand better rates/pay for the oncall period with the threat of finding another job. Caveat, it's best to have another job waiting before you do this.
Then stop buying from Dell! There are plenty of small local shops that will be more than happy to custom build a PC for you with whatever the heck you want in them.
Heck, at the place I used to work at we even installed a few digi-boards and industrial controller cards for customers that needed it.
I'm sure the local place would be happy to make similar accomodations for you.
Actually he said "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." So he didn't invent it, he just created it.
The only reason I buy craftsman. They didn't even ask for a receipt. Just grunted, walked to the isle, grabbed a new one, scanned it and handed it to me.
How a company is supposed to stay in business without selling anything? Now I realize that most of the cost of software is actually the cost to support and maintain it, but how many individuals do you know that would be willing to get software for free and then pay for the support. Yes, I know companies will and do do this, but how often have you seen an individual do it?
Also he makes the statement:
They have been taught that sharing is wrong and that license fees feed the programmers who write the software. Having difficulty understanding the fundamental error in this reasoning is often the reason why these individuals fail to grasp even the basic concepts of free software.
I can see the error in thinking that sharing is necessarily wrong (in some cases it may not be right) but where is the error in thinking that the fees charged are what feeds the employees? If you go back to the paid support model, please tell me who is going to pay a company for support when they can either hire their own people to maintain the source and fix problems or in the case of consumers get one of us geeks to do it for free?
And before you start flaming, realize that I like GPL'ed stuff since I can learn from it, and am busy learning so that I might eventually make a contribution. I simply think that far too many people fail to see the economic realities that make truly free software unviable for a lot of companies.
I think he was inferring that accusing all rednecks of being bigots is a bigotted remark. Or maybe you were merely being droll. Guess I missed it, my bad.
As did I, redneck [i]big guts[/i] sheesh, don't they teach reeding up north anymor?
Yes, this is entirely tongue in cheek (not those cheeks dammit!).
I'm a redneck, I'm not a bigot, I don't even own a dodge (although I do have three cinder blocks). Also, you shouldn't confuse redneck with white trash (it's okay when Jeff Foxworthy does, cuz he's a redneck too).
And yes, I realize I didn't post anonymously this time.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for that link. Very interesting article. I'm preordering the book right now.
Question: How does the field agent know what is evidence and what isn't? I guess you'd like to make sure that all FBI agents are also fully trained as sysadmins for every OS/Harware combo known to man.
THe feds seized the equipment because it might be evidence and they have no way to know for sure without running it through a computer forensics lab.
The real travesty will be trying to get the equipment back after he is no loger a suspect.
get too thick, I would like to point out that your average FBI field agent is clueless when it comes to computers. They are there to get a statement, and grab anything that remotely looks like evidence. Frankly, I'm surprised that they gave the guy back his box of junk parts.
The reason they grab everything is that unless proper forensic analysis is done on a computer, it is possible to innocently overwrite what was up to that point evidence. FBI field agents know this sort of thing look very bad on their records.
Now, assuming the original poster is innocent, his problem will be getting his stuff back from the feds after they decide he is not a suspect and anytime before the case goes to trial. If you want more information, click one of the links to the Hacker Crackdown that are destined to appear shortly (if they haven't already).
Which is why I'm against matching funds as well. It's the same damn thing, politicians picking the pockets of the people.
"Nader is also for opening up the airwaves for less corporate programming and more free community access which will allow non-millionaires to get their voice heard and give the 1 million crowd equal time so we can have a real debate."
free community access? Do you think anyone would actually watch? How much community access do you think people watch on cable (where available)? How much do you think people watch PBS? I guess Nader is for forced viewing too? Is he going to make sure we all have govt approved TVs?
People like that are just scary. Govt is not the answer, never has been the answer and never will be the answer.
But at least you're willing to make a decision and presumably vote. I'll give you props for that.
I have to clear up this stupid misconception. Just because someone opts to send their children to private school does not mean they are rich. Actually, in my church, we help parents pay for private school if they need the help. I know several families that would be considered poor to lower middle class that send their kids to private school (most without our churches help) because they realize the value of a good education that's concerned less with how Johnny feels about himself and more with how well Johnny can think.
The whole bit about subsidizing private schools being transfer of wealth ot the wealthy is a bunch of bull.
Also, don't forget that a lot of private schools are against this plan because they know that as soon as they accept govt funds, then the govt and teachers unions will step in and try and make them just as bad as a govt run school.
Frankly, I don't think govt has any place in education whatsoever.
Sorry, but wouldn't publicly funded elections merely make the current govt administration the masters? Are you sure you really want the govt to decide who gets funding so they can run for office?
I'd much rather just see a very modest cap put on all election spending. Say 1 Million. Then we could see which candidate was better at budgeting their money.
Perhaps he should get a chance first. Actually given Bush's people skills I'd say he would probably do better. Also, are you going to vote for Gore's idiotic knowledge of what a logarithm is? Get real.
You neglect to mention that the stupid environmental policies also affect poor people too. Case in point, when I was very young my father dug a pond on our land. Several years ago we decided to sell off parts of the land to people wanting to build houses, and decided to fill in the pond so we could sell the half acre it was on as well. Guess what. We couldn't. Permit (what I have to get a permit to move dirt on my own property?) denied. Our man made pond is now considered part of the natural wet lands. So I guess we have to stay (relatively) poor. Hmm, maybe if the govt passed some more laws restricting our freedoms they could force us to depend on them for everything...naw they wouldn't want to do that would they?
I guess you could say a hidden plank of the greens and the dems is "the only good landholder is the govt", "the only good space is govt mandated space", and "cut down babies, not trees!".
Sheesh, both the major parties are in it for one thing. POWER. The only difference that I can see is that the republicans aren't so keen to lord it over the rest of us. And Nader can be pretty well summed up by the phrase "Nanny State".
How about limiting the FEDERAL govt to the powers granted to it in the US Constitution? Leave the rest to the states and the locals, the way the founders meant it to be.
By that thinking, isn't voting for any candidate who loses a wasted vote?
Uhm, I think you may be in violation of some serious laws here. The whole thing about assasinating office holders is little of kilter there bub.
Maybe those age limitations were put in to keep people from trying to do revolutionary genius level work on the govt itself. Idealistic fanaticism may work great for small groups, but seems to be less than ideal when applied to a nation.
Perhaps the lack of totally blinding idealism is wisdom.
Actually, I never said I hate Katz. Perhaps you should have gotten an education instead of just going to school.
Or I could tell you that the US isn't a democracy. I could also tell you that if your countries leaders feel a need to follow US laws, then perhaps you should try and fix things at home.
Frankly, there are plenty of US citizens that wish the world would go do it's own thing and leave us the hell alone. If your leaders decided not to blindly follow the US's lead, that would be just dandy with me.
Uh, I think it was a joke. Then again maybe yours was too. I hope so. If not, you should take the advice in your sig.
Okay, sorry forgot how little sarcasm get's through, but actually I didn't read all of it. I just read the blurb and enough of it to see that they were all just reposts of responses to one of Katz's previous articles (which I did read).
.....Can you?[/sarcasm]
[sarcasm] Obviously I can't look cool on slashdot, you can't see me!
Katz doesn't even bother to write anymore, he just takes random responses to his previous writings and then posts those. But then, I don't bother to read Katz anymore, I just take previous writings of his and randomly respond.
That's what they do where I work. We're on salary with no such thing as paid overtime. We work around the situation by prioritizing calls. There are some things that will simply wait until the next business day and e-mail is usually one of those. If we can fix it over the phone or via dial in, great. If not, we'll get it first thing tommorow.
Also, the job market being what it is right now, you can always either demand better rates/pay for the oncall period with the threat of finding another job. Caveat, it's best to have another job waiting before you do this.
Actually you can find out exactly what the founders intended. They are called the federalist papers. Check out The Federalist.
Actually, the point of communism is that you don't have to work for a living, you can sponge off everybody else.
Then stop buying from Dell! There are plenty of small local shops that will be more than happy to custom build a PC for you with whatever the heck you want in them.
Heck, at the place I used to work at we even installed a few digi-boards and industrial controller cards for customers that needed it.
I'm sure the local place would be happy to make similar accomodations for you.
Actually he said "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." So he didn't invent it, he just created it.
Yes.
No.
The only reason I buy craftsman. They didn't even ask for a receipt. Just grunted, walked to the isle, grabbed a new one, scanned it and handed it to me.
Also he makes the statement:
I can see the error in thinking that sharing is necessarily wrong (in some cases it may not be right) but where is the error in thinking that the fees charged are what feeds the employees? If you go back to the paid support model, please tell me who is going to pay a company for support when they can either hire their own people to maintain the source and fix problems or in the case of consumers get one of us geeks to do it for free?
And before you start flaming, realize that I like GPL'ed stuff since I can learn from it, and am busy learning so that I might eventually make a contribution. I simply think that far too many people fail to see the economic realities that make truly free software unviable for a lot of companies.
I think he was inferring that accusing all rednecks of being bigots is a bigotted remark. Or maybe you were merely being droll. Guess I missed it, my bad.
As did I, redneck [i]big guts[/i] sheesh, don't they teach reeding up north anymor? Yes, this is entirely tongue in cheek (not those cheeks dammit!). I'm a redneck, I'm not a bigot, I don't even own a dodge (although I do have three cinder blocks). Also, you shouldn't confuse redneck with white trash (it's okay when Jeff Foxworthy does, cuz he's a redneck too). And yes, I realize I didn't post anonymously this time.