turn something of his into a *GOOD* film (as we all hope Neuromancer will be)
The thought gives me the willies after I saw the other Gibson adaptation, that hideous thing with Keanu Reeves I won't even say the name of.
I remember reading the original Gibson short story in Omni, before Neuromancer had come out. I didn't know anything about Gibson except that this story was cool and weird.
The movie defiled my memory of the story. I actually felt filthy watching it. God, did that movie blow syphilitic leper penises.
If they do that to Neuromancer I'm blowing up theatres.
I don't know what's up with that shit. Happened to me yesterday, thought it was something wiggy about the post itself, changed it a little, same thing. Logged out, same thing. Logged back in, same thing. Tried it from another machine, same thing.
Worked fine a couple hours later. I don't know. WTF?
This kind of puts Linux in a bad light, don't you think?
I dunno, the first time I used it for a firewall it involved dicking around on the net for hours to figure out what I was doing. It was time well-spent, but Linux does have a significant clue curve.
This isn't a bad thing, it just menas that Linux isn't for everyone. I kind of like that, actually. I used to think it'd be groovy if everyone was on the Internet, now I wish some of them would fuck off. I do NOT want to be talking to my grandmother about editing rc.conf.
Just how is something like this different from any other form of vigilanteism? The "doctrine of necessity" can justify this?
In the case of a bank or other entity answerable to its shareholders, creating a panic could result in a massive class-action shareholders suit. With such money at stake, it is not surprising there are those willing to take "direct action" against a hacker or hackers. I have even heard rumors of such extreme actions as sending goon squads armed with baseball bats to confiscate computers and demand silence.
I for one would not be amused were someone to send out bogus emails with my name on them.
I wasn't either, myself, when forged messages containing racist and Neo-NAZI materials were forged in my name.
I would not consider it reasonable to mount a DoS attack on the spammer but certainly would be after them with all the legal force my meager resources could bring to bear.
The case I'm referring to, where I resorted to possibly-illegal DoS attacks, was the case of Scientology's forged spam of alt.religion.scientology. This was perhaps the worst and most prolonged spam in history, and all the spam was forged in the names of posters to the newsgroup, at first with NAZI materials culled from racist newsgroups.
It took electronic tracking by normal spam-hunting means, the use of private investigators and the interest of the FBI to stop that, though nobody was prosecuted. The page I cited lists the ISPs abused, some of which were effectively knocked off the net by the hijacking. The "sporgery" (spammed forgery) used dialup ISP accounts paid for by money orders with fake info, hijacked Wingates on @home.com, open news servers, even once a router for ham-based packet radio! The cable modem spam hit thousands of posts an hour.
When attacks become extreme and unstoppable by ordinary means, and law enforcement won't do anything, people will resort to extraordinary means. (I stopped the DOS when it merely caused the sporgers to hop from IP to IP faster, which made it more difficult to filter.)
What this guy is doing is probably "wrong" but I applaud him on all accounts. I really detest spammers
This is excellent. Incidentally, there is a legal doctrine called the "doctrine of necessity" which allows what would ordinarily be considered crimes to be committed if a) the amount of damage caused is less than that caused by the original crime and b) there is no other reasonable legal alternative.
A bank which, rather than alerting the police and causing their shareholder value to drop precipitously, instead hired hackers to hack back when they were being invaded, would be merely honoring their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.
"Hack back" defenses have not yet been legally tested, that I know of. Further the risk is minimal. I myself have used DOS attacks (deliberately limited to avoid damaging the guy's ISP) against spammers, to limit the damage they cause while attempting through other means to get them axed. I find it highly unlikely that someone is going to complain to the police about something someone did to them while they were themselves committing a crime.
"Uh, officer, well, I was stealing this car when this guy came up behind me and. .."
Forgery is already a crime in the physical realm. Why, then, should it not be also a crime in the digital?
Indeed. Incidentally, while it may or may not be a crime to forge spam, it's a misdemeanor of the first degree to use a computer without authorization. (18 USC 2701.) I'm surprised this one isn't used more often. The "victim" of the crime would be the site used as a spam relay, and the result (overload of the system), being something any reasonable person would expect, could be construed as malice, resulting in the act being a felony, since obviously they are using the other person's system with the intent of avoiding their own system being wiped out by spam.
A number of cases have shown that relay hijacking and use of trademarks in spam is trademark infringement.
I think the argument that "forging spam" is itself a crime is somewhat bogus, I don't know why they don't go forward with some state version of the "Unlawful Use of Computers" statute, as this is a slam-dunk, while this "forged spam is crime" argument is pretty thin.
Forgery generally refers to the forgery of documents for the benefit of the forger. This is a trickier claim to make. (Definition of forgery here.)
Well, The Offspring did say that they were selling Napster merchandise in part to see how cool Napster would be about it. Guess they have their answer.
I just have to say this is a hoot and I am ROFLMAO. I bet the Offspring are, too. I wouldn't be surprised if Lars and Dr. Dre are also getting a nasty chuckle out of it.
Napster has been put in a lousy position. Because of their premature IPO they are now in a position to face the wrath of shareholders. If they don't act on their trademark dilution claim, then they could end up facing class-action minority shareholder suits, which are the pits.
If they do sue, they end up looking like hypocritical morons. They simultaneously draw the ire of pirates, fanatical anti-pirates and piss off a band that was actually helping them.
They are managing to hoist the Jolly Roger and wear jackboots at the same time. HipHipHooray for Napster. Avast, ye scurvy dogs! Keep yer lubberly paws off me trademarks!
Napster's ass-covering disclaimer does not alter what they have done.
I imagine the various Napster suits turning on a few definable issues.
The centralized Napster server run by Napster is a medium which facilitates infringement, opening them to vicarious liability, rather as a flea market which condones illegal sales is open to such liability if their vendors deal pirated goods. Napster comes, by default, set so that files downloaded by a user are automatically shared. Napster's market value and market share, thus their profits, are derived from the increased value the service has gained through this automated encouragement of piracy. Even after having been informed of this, Napster still delivers the software in this configuration by default.
I think Napster could remedy these problems, and have a more prominent warning, when you switch on filesharing, that you had best limit this function to files you have the right to distribute.
I still would prefer that Napster win the case, because copyright law is draconian enough without being further bolstered by bad, hasty case law. But Napster has partly brought this on themselves by the default configuration of their software. It is not as if some bunch of pirates found software out there and realized "You can use this to pirate stuff!" It is, rather, a case of software which by itself is configured to turn your hard drive into a pirate archive.
This may have been inadvertent, just like the monkeys flying out of my ass.
Furthermore, for an act to considered criminal libal too things must be proven, a. that the statements are indeed untrue, and b. that the person or persons named by the statements have been in some way damaged or injured by the statements.
Further, many of the people involved in the alleged defamation have injected themselves into the public controversy by their own public comments, making them limited public figures with relation to a libel action.
In this case, the parties (or the state) would have to prove ACTUAL MALICE, not merely damage by the statements.
"St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules." R.A.V. v. ST. PAUL, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)
Incidentally, this statute may be unconstitutional by its construction. Either on an argument of "unconstitutionally vague or overbraod" or in that it appears to criminalize first amendment protected conduct. This depends on the state definition of defamation and whether the truth of the allegation is allowed as an affirmative defense.
"St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules." R.A.V. v. ST. PAUL, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)
When I start calling people names and saying things about them in a delibrate attempt to cause harm, that's libel.
No, a principal component of libel, at least in the United States, is that it not be true. Have any of us seen the website? I haven't. The father at least states that if taken to court about it the intention is to provide proof that all the statements did have a factual basis.
Name-calling may not be pleasant but it is not illegal unless it involves false accusations. Something like "slut" is not illegal, it is a matter of opinion. The use of such terms is often seen as sexist or otherwise politically-incorrect but that does not magically make it illegal.
Incidentally, apparently he and his friend had been subjected to libellous attacks in the school newspaper itself before this started--see my RAV v. St. Paul quote at the end with regards to that.
"What is the freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." - Salman Rushdie
"St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules." R.A.V. v. ST. PAUL, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)
I have not seen the original web site. While some say it is libellous, depending on how it was phrased it could have been well-founded on fact and protected speech.
In this case, Falwell sued because Hustler printed a parody in which he was portrayed as having had his first sexual experience with his mother in an outhouse.
That was legal. If Flynt could publish that kind of material, then it is just as legally protected if published online.
In either case, the chilling effects on First Amendment protected speech are enormous if libel such as this is viewed not merely as a civil tort which can be redressed by a libel suit, but in fact actually becomes a criminal offense.
I hope this kid sues the holy bejesus out of these bastards. Personally, I agree with him. These fucking people are on crack, probably sluts, and certainly fascists.
Assuming this news story is true, the ISP in question should be exposed, so they can receive the treatment they deserve, which is every script kiddie in the US harassing all their lusers every time they post something.
However, it's total hearsay, no ISP is cited, no news agency, nothing. How is one to know if this is even true?
In either case, the user banned, if there even is such a user, should sue for breach of contract, and sue his attackers as well. Presumably at least one of them was stupid enough to use his real IP.
With the sheer computing power of something like this, a similar device designed exclusively for cryptanalysis with enough units around to run a distributed network could probably put a big dent in many currently "secure" crypto products.
Then you could say bye-bye to rc5-64. Perhaps before long you could eat rc5-64s like popcorn and go on to the other challenges at RSA.
Now, my question. I own the tapes. Tapes are inferior to CD's, therefore, would you consider this "theft"?
Why yes, of course! This is like stealing someone's BMW because you have a BMW of your own! It is also like breaking into someone's house and then molesting their children because you used to be a child! Not to mention you're a NAZI and probably gay.
All you Slashdot commies think you should get everything for free! If it wasn't for the RIAA there would be no such thing as music except for people in the streets banging garbage can lids together!
(Note: Sarcasm. ..some web browsers don't display sarcasm tags properly)
In pointing this out, you make clear that you have failed to understand the morality of the United States. Put a Metallica song on Napster, and you are a "thief."
Steal half a billion through extortionate practices, and you are a "businessman."
I don't particularly justify copyright infringement of Metallica music or RIAA owned "intellectual properties." However, I don't particularly sympathize with a pack of the biggest thugs on the planet, either.
"Possibly malicious in intent, but benign in reality, the worm uses the Visual Basic Script language to store itself on an infected computer in 23 different files named, for example, Pamela Anderson movie listing.vbs, collegesex.vbs, Battlefield Earth.vbs, Napster Metallica Crack.vbs and NSync.vbs." From here
Battlefield Earth? Metallica? ROFL! Anyone downloading such crap deserves to get VBS scripts. Frigging NSync? They are certainly aiming this trojan at the proper audience!
n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder.
This requires more than an intention to kill. If you get in a bar fight, and then kill someone in a fit of rage, that is second degree murder. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon).
So dropping a large object from an overpass would count as second degree murder, because you couldn't possibly do such a thing without realizing it was likely to cause grave injury or death.
There are also other instances, such as felony murder, in which participation in a felony in which a murder occurs can result in a conviction for murder, even if the person in question did not personally commit the murder.
I respect your right to laugh at me, but of course I still disagree with you:)
I thought you might. . .
Standard Oil never had a monopoly either. Before the breakup it had eight other large oil companies competing with it. It did indeed amass a dominant market share, but did so by undercutting competitors prices and dramatically expanding the market for oil. Like Microsoft, the government action against it came at the urging of its smaller, less successful competitors.
I think its market share at the time of the breakup was 85% but I don't have a solid cite for that. I believe Microsoft's share was significantly higher than that at the initiation of the current proceedings, but all the stats I've seen for that are palpably bogus and based on pure SWAG, such as copies sold.
Maybe if Standard had been left alone things would have worked out differently and we'd now be using something less primitive and environmentally destructive than fossil fuels.
That's a pretty big "what-if."
My core argument is that governments cannot promote or create competition. The only thing they can do is hamper it by taxation, regulation, and generally hindering and hampering the free market from doing what it does best, which is basically to route around inefficiency and price-gouging.
The only time governmental interference is warranted is when the damage which is inevitable from government interference is outweighed by even greater damage caused by monopolistic, anti-competitive practices taken to an extreme. The government would love to be meddling in these affairs all the time, and it's usually preferable that they don't. I don't think anti-trust is one of these areas, though, and actual corporate breakups are quite rare. Companies like Standard Oil and Microsoft are also quite rare, though of course it's a sign of true success to create a company which the government steps in to break up.
In either case, I don't really see this harming the economy in the long run, or even harming the shareholders who are smart enough to hang on to their stock rather than panicking and running for the hills.
Obviously the feds think they did something illegal. Personally I think the feds are committing a far more heinous act than anything MS ever did. IMHO, antitrust laws are complete bullshit, and this trial is complete bullshit.
You're free to hold that opinion and I'm free to laugh at you. If it weren't for antitrust laws, you would now be paying five bucks a gallon for gas (like in England) and your telephone wouldn't have Caller-ID or voicemail or any of those fancy features and you'd be paying twice as much for it.
Ever hear of Mobil, Exxon, Sunoco, Texaco and these other competing companies? None of those would have existed without the breakup of Standard Oil.
Shareholders made out like bandits after the breakup and the economy boomed.
Slashdot Mirror
turn something of his into a *GOOD* film (as we all hope Neuromancer will be)
The thought gives me the willies after I saw the other Gibson adaptation, that hideous thing with Keanu Reeves I won't even say the name of.
I remember reading the original Gibson short story in Omni, before Neuromancer had come out. I didn't know anything about Gibson except that this story was cool and weird.
The movie defiled my memory of the story. I actually felt filthy watching it. God, did that movie blow syphilitic leper penises.
If they do that to Neuromancer I'm blowing up theatres.
Worked fine a couple hours later. I don't know. WTF?
This kind of puts Linux in a bad light, don't you think?
I dunno, the first time I used it for a firewall it involved dicking around on the net for hours to figure out what I was doing. It was time well-spent, but Linux does have a significant clue curve.
This isn't a bad thing, it just menas that Linux isn't for everyone. I kind of like that, actually. I used to think it'd be groovy if everyone was on the Internet, now I wish some of them would fuck off. I do NOT want to be talking to my grandmother about editing rc.conf.
Just how is something like this different from any other form of vigilanteism? The "doctrine of necessity" can justify this?
In the case of a bank or other entity answerable to its shareholders, creating a panic could result in a massive class-action shareholders suit. With such money at stake, it is not surprising there are those willing to take "direct action" against a hacker or hackers. I have even heard rumors of such extreme actions as sending goon squads armed with baseball bats to confiscate computers and demand silence.
I for one would not be amused were someone to send out bogus emails with my name on them.
I wasn't either, myself, when forged messages containing racist and Neo-NAZI materials were forged in my name.
I would not consider it reasonable to mount a DoS attack on the spammer but certainly would be after them with all the legal force my meager resources could bring to bear.
The case I'm referring to, where I resorted to possibly-illegal DoS attacks, was the case of Scientology's forged spam of alt.religion.scientology. This was perhaps the worst and most prolonged spam in history, and all the spam was forged in the names of posters to the newsgroup, at first with NAZI materials culled from racist newsgroups.
It took electronic tracking by normal spam-hunting means, the use of private investigators and the interest of the FBI to stop that, though nobody was prosecuted. The page I cited lists the ISPs abused, some of which were effectively knocked off the net by the hijacking. The "sporgery" (spammed forgery) used dialup ISP accounts paid for by money orders with fake info, hijacked Wingates on @home.com, open news servers, even once a router for ham-based packet radio! The cable modem spam hit thousands of posts an hour.
When attacks become extreme and unstoppable by ordinary means, and law enforcement won't do anything, people will resort to extraordinary means. (I stopped the DOS when it merely caused the sporgers to hop from IP to IP faster, which made it more difficult to filter.)
What this guy is doing is probably "wrong" but I applaud him on all accounts. I really detest spammers
This is excellent. Incidentally, there is a legal doctrine called the "doctrine of necessity" which allows what would ordinarily be considered crimes to be committed if a) the amount of damage caused is less than that caused by the original crime and b) there is no other reasonable legal alternative.
A bank which, rather than alerting the police and causing their shareholder value to drop precipitously, instead hired hackers to hack back when they were being invaded, would be merely honoring their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.
"Hack back" defenses have not yet been legally tested, that I know of. Further the risk is minimal. I myself have used DOS attacks (deliberately limited to avoid damaging the guy's ISP) against spammers, to limit the damage they cause while attempting through other means to get them axed. I find it highly unlikely that someone is going to complain to the police about something someone did to them while they were themselves committing a crime.
"Uh, officer, well, I was stealing this car when this guy came up behind me and. . ."
Forgery is already a crime in the physical realm. Why, then, should it not be also a crime in the digital?
Indeed. Incidentally, while it may or may not be a crime to forge spam, it's a misdemeanor of the first degree to use a computer without authorization. (18 USC 2701.) I'm surprised this one isn't used more often. The "victim" of the crime would be the site used as a spam relay, and the result (overload of the system), being something any reasonable person would expect, could be construed as malice, resulting in the act being a felony, since obviously they are using the other person's system with the intent of avoiding their own system being wiped out by spam.
A number of cases have shown that relay hijacking and use of trademarks in spam is trademark infringement.
I think the argument that "forging spam" is itself a crime is somewhat bogus, I don't know why they don't go forward with some state version of the "Unlawful Use of Computers" statute, as this is a slam-dunk, while this "forged spam is crime" argument is pretty thin.
Forgery generally refers to the forgery of documents for the benefit of the forger. This is a trickier claim to make. (Definition of forgery here.)
Well, The Offspring did say that they were selling Napster merchandise in part to see how cool Napster would be about it. Guess they have their answer.
I just have to say this is a hoot and I am ROFLMAO. I bet the Offspring are, too. I wouldn't be surprised if Lars and Dr. Dre are also getting a nasty chuckle out of it.
Napster has been put in a lousy position. Because of their premature IPO they are now in a position to face the wrath of shareholders. If they don't act on their trademark dilution claim, then they could end up facing class-action minority shareholder suits, which are the pits.
If they do sue, they end up looking like hypocritical morons. They simultaneously draw the ire of pirates, fanatical anti-pirates and piss off a band that was actually helping them.
They are managing to hoist the Jolly Roger and wear jackboots at the same time. HipHipHooray for Napster. Avast, ye scurvy dogs! Keep yer lubberly paws off me trademarks!
I imagine the various Napster suits turning on a few definable issues.
The centralized Napster server run by Napster is a medium which facilitates infringement, opening them to vicarious liability, rather as a flea market which condones illegal sales is open to such liability if their vendors deal pirated goods.
Napster comes, by default, set so that files downloaded by a user are automatically shared.
Napster's market value and market share, thus their profits, are derived from the increased value the service has gained through this automated encouragement of piracy.
Even after having been informed of this, Napster still delivers the software in this configuration by default.
I think Napster could remedy these problems, and have a more prominent warning, when you switch on filesharing, that you had best limit this function to files you have the right to distribute.
I still would prefer that Napster win the case, because copyright law is draconian enough without being further bolstered by bad, hasty case law. But Napster has partly brought this on themselves by the default configuration of their software. It is not as if some bunch of pirates found software out there and realized "You can use this to pirate stuff!" It is, rather, a case of software which by itself is configured to turn your hard drive into a pirate archive.
This may have been inadvertent, just like the monkeys flying out of my ass.
Furthermore, for an act to considered criminal libal too things must be proven, a. that the statements are indeed untrue, and b. that the person or persons named by the statements have been in some way damaged or injured by the statements.
Further, many of the people involved in the alleged defamation have injected themselves into the public controversy by their own public comments, making them limited public figures with relation to a libel action.
In this case, the parties (or the state) would have to prove ACTUAL MALICE, not merely damage by the statements.
"St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules."
R.A.V. v. ST. PAUL, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)
"If you can't say fuck, you can't say fuck the government."
or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue or reputation, or publish the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule.
Incidentally, this statute may be unconstitutional by its construction. Either on an argument of "unconstitutionally vague or overbraod" or in that it appears to criminalize first amendment protected conduct. This depends on the state definition of defamation and whether the truth of the allegation is allowed as an affirmative defense.
"St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules."
R.A.V. v. ST. PAUL, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)
When I start calling people names and saying things about them in a delibrate attempt to cause harm, that's libel.
No, a principal component of libel, at least in the United States, is that it not be true. Have any of us seen the website? I haven't. The father at least states that if taken to court about it the intention is to provide proof that all the statements did have a factual basis.
Name-calling may not be pleasant but it is not illegal unless it involves false accusations. Something like "slut" is not illegal, it is a matter of opinion. The use of such terms is often seen as sexist or otherwise politically-incorrect but that does not magically make it illegal.
Incidentally, apparently he and his friend had been subjected to libellous attacks in the school newspaper itself before this started--see my RAV v. St. Paul quote at the end with regards to that.
"What is the freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." - Salman Rushdie
"St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules."
R.A.V. v. ST. PAUL, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)
In either case, look up HUSTLER MAGAZINE v. FALWELL, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).
In this case, Falwell sued because Hustler printed a parody in which he was portrayed as having had his first sexual experience with his mother in an outhouse.
That was legal. If Flynt could publish that kind of material, then it is just as legally protected if published online.
In either case, the chilling effects on First Amendment protected speech are enormous if libel such as this is viewed not merely as a civil tort which can be redressed by a libel suit, but in fact actually becomes a criminal offense.
I hope this kid sues the holy bejesus out of these bastards. Personally, I agree with him. These fucking people are on crack, probably sluts, and certainly fascists.
However, it's total hearsay, no ISP is cited, no news agency, nothing. How is one to know if this is even true?
In either case, the user banned, if there even is such a user, should sue for breach of contract, and sue his attackers as well. Presumably at least one of them was stupid enough to use his real IP.
Then you could say bye-bye to rc5-64. Perhaps before long you could eat rc5-64s like popcorn and go on to the other challenges at RSA.
Napster doesn't ban your IP. They insert a key into your registry.
Fascinating. That means that without your informed consent they install code which modifies information on your computer without your permission?
Doesn't that make it a "virus"? Heh.
Now, my question. I own the tapes. Tapes are inferior to CD's, therefore, would you consider this "theft"?
Why yes, of course! This is like stealing someone's BMW because you have a BMW of your own! It is also like breaking into someone's house and then molesting their children because you used to be a child! Not to mention you're a NAZI and probably gay.
All you Slashdot commies think you should get everything for free! If it wasn't for the RIAA there would be no such thing as music except for people in the streets banging garbage can lids together!
(Note: Sarcasm. . .some web browsers don't display sarcasm tags properly)
Why do all you holier-than-thous make the analogy of car theft?
Because they haven't yet got to the part of high school where they teach World War II, so they don't know to call people NAZIs yet.
Here's some info if you'd care to inform yourself: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/05/cdpres.htm
In pointing this out, you make clear that you have failed to understand the morality of the United States. Put a Metallica song on Napster, and you are a "thief."
Steal half a billion through extortionate practices, and you are a "businessman."
I don't particularly justify copyright infringement of Metallica music or RIAA owned "intellectual properties." However, I don't particularly sympathize with a pack of the biggest thugs on the planet, either.
"Possibly malicious in intent, but benign in reality, the worm uses the Visual Basic Script language to store itself on an infected computer in 23 different files named, for example, Pamela Anderson movie listing.vbs, collegesex.vbs, Battlefield Earth.vbs, Napster Metallica Crack.vbs and NSync.vbs."
From here
Battlefield Earth? Metallica? ROFL! Anyone downloading such crap deserves to get VBS scripts. Frigging NSync? They are certainly aiming this trojan at the proper audience!
How about a license to connect to the Information Super Highway?
Your blue-sky proposal is ridiculous. Who is going to set up the "test";
How about ME!
who is going to administer it;
ME there, too!
what penalties will there be for "driving without a license", etc.
Why, the only penalty that matters, of course! DEATH!
Do you really want to install *yet another* bureaucracy over us?
No need for any bureaucracy. Just give me a few million and the bullets ;-)
I wrote an article in two parts about that for Phrack about that.
IANAL, too, but as far as I know:
Intent to kill -- 1st degree murder
[Excerpts from the law.com dictionary]:
n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder.
This requires more than an intention to kill. If you get in a bar fight, and then kill someone in a fit of rage, that is second degree murder.
Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon).
So dropping a large object from an overpass would count as second degree murder, because you couldn't possibly do such a thing without realizing it was likely to cause grave injury or death.
There are also other instances, such as felony murder, in which participation in a felony in which a murder occurs can result in a conviction for murder, even if the person in question did not personally commit the murder.
IANAL.
I respect your right to laugh at me, but of course I still disagree with you :)
I thought you might. . .
Standard Oil never had a monopoly either. Before the breakup it had eight other large oil companies competing with it. It did indeed amass a dominant market share, but did so by undercutting competitors prices and dramatically expanding the market for oil. Like Microsoft, the government action against it came at the urging of its smaller, less successful competitors.
I think its market share at the time of the breakup was 85% but I don't have a solid cite for that. I believe Microsoft's share was significantly higher than that at the initiation of the current proceedings, but all the stats I've seen for that are palpably bogus and based on pure SWAG, such as copies sold.
Maybe if Standard had been left alone things would have worked out differently and we'd now be using something less primitive and environmentally destructive than fossil fuels.
That's a pretty big "what-if."
My core argument is that governments cannot promote or create competition. The only thing they can do is hamper it by taxation, regulation, and generally hindering and hampering the free market from doing what it does best, which is basically to route around inefficiency and price-gouging.
The only time governmental interference is warranted is when the damage which is inevitable from government interference is outweighed by even greater damage caused by monopolistic, anti-competitive practices taken to an extreme. The government would love to be meddling in these affairs all the time, and it's usually preferable that they don't. I don't think anti-trust is one of these areas, though, and actual corporate breakups are quite rare. Companies like Standard Oil and Microsoft are also quite rare, though of course it's a sign of true success to create a company which the government steps in to break up.
In either case, I don't really see this harming the economy in the long run, or even harming the shareholders who are smart enough to hang on to their stock rather than panicking and running for the hills.
Obviously the feds think they did something illegal. Personally I think the feds are committing a far more heinous act than anything MS ever did. IMHO, antitrust laws are complete bullshit, and this trial is complete bullshit.
You're free to hold that opinion and I'm free to laugh at you. If it weren't for antitrust laws, you would now be paying five bucks a gallon for gas (like in England) and your telephone wouldn't have Caller-ID or voicemail or any of those fancy features and you'd be paying twice as much for it.
Ever hear of Mobil, Exxon, Sunoco, Texaco and these other competing companies? None of those would have existed without the breakup of Standard Oil.
Shareholders made out like bandits after the breakup and the economy boomed.