I'm saying, if email means that much to someone (it means a lot to me, for example), then they should not be so casual about who their email provider is. There's plenty of options for striking a balance between convenience, cost, and guarantees of service and privacy.
And that entire point is moot.
Replace 'gmail' with 'any ISP physically located in the USA'. They all have the exact same problem with the law that google did here.
And any ISP *NOT* in the USA is going to have a similar but different problem, one that was already pointed out.
You can be as un-casual as you want about whom you put your email with, but the same result will happen.
Thus, your solution will result in the same exact thing (account being locked by court order), the only difference is you just put a ton of effort and work into moving your email before the new account is locked down as well. (IE: No solution what so ever)
That's what Firefox with the IE Tab add-in is for. If you have control of your IT infrastructure, why settle for the intrusive kludge of Chrome Frame?
Because it is very difficult to maintain a firefox deployment on a windows network.
Active directory and Group policy are tied in deep with IE. Firefox, not so much.
There are third parties that make the required MSI installers, at least for the browser. Settings can not be pushed out through group policy, they have to be configured in advance and placed in the MSI installer.
This basically means you use the same method to push out the software, as you use to push configuration changes.
It does get the job done. It just isn't pretty. It also conflicts with anyone who has installed firefox manually, occasionally just blowing away profiles (only happened 3 times out of 150 workstations, so not too bad really, given firefox has done this by itself to me more than once in the past in a regular install)
Personally, I feel the pain of deployment is well worth the benefits of having firefox for internet browsing and IE only for intranet/webapps.
I'd love to believe Microsoft about the IE8 sandboxing security, but they are not exactly trustworthy at all in that area. Plus we have the added problem of skipping vista for win7, so are currently still using XP with server 2003 backends.
Props to the maintainers of the MSI versions of firefox for corporate deployment however. Still far to go, but definately lots of progress has already been made.
The point is however, a lot of MS only shops will want to stick with the well integrated MS only tools. These tools exclude most all 3rd party software, so IE it is. And this seems to be a very good way to improve IE's security without resorting to maintaining a painful firefox deployment.
I don't know of one, but there is good bot prevention. It's called "Linux".
So in other words, you want me to replace our Windows workstaions that run our ERP software which runs most of the business, over to Linux workstations that will not run ERP software worth anything, so that our business has to shut down?
SmRT!
I have made some Linux deployments here, but sadly there is just no way to fully switch over without seriously major and long interruptions in the business processes.
Due to the ERP software using 'technologies' ranging from Access 2000 up to dotNET 3.0, this pretty much rules out Wine and CrossOver.
The only two methods I see available at the moment, are
a) Use vmware or the like for our ERP client. Still runs windows, still needs a license, etc etc. Not really solving the problem, nor worth the effort.
b) Upgrade/Add a Windows 2008 server (We use 2003 currently) which has the new Terminal Services (RDP 6.1) TS-RemoteApp where you can export applications instead of just full desktops. This will let us seamlessly run the ERP client modeless on the Linux systems, where the software runs on the server, but the GUI looks native.
I do like the idea of B, but an upgrade to Win 2008 is not cheap, and while it would be an improvement (Keeping Windows off the desktop and away from the users), that will be a major chunk of budget for only minor benefits, with the possibility of major problems in the future. The only upside is that to stay on the upgrade treadmill, going to Win2008 will need to happen eventually anyways.
Wide general sweeping statements though... Easy to prove wrong every time.
I swear there was a memo sent out that I didn't get.. because this is the fifth person here claiming that Apple published an API to interface with iTunes. Provide a link to the documentation for this published API... because as far as I can tell, it doesn't actually exist.
it's really a wonder that you can buy a single game over there that's any more graphic than cartoon bears throwing marshmallows at each other and then apologizing afterwards.
Ooooh, that must be the new Canadian Wolfenstein version!
* Sorry in advance to our northerly neighbors! I really do <3 you *
Right so when AIM was mimicking AOL's protocol and not the public OSCAR protocol because of the lack of features it was okay,
No, not at all.
but when palm does it, its wrong.
yes
And Apple has the right to change their software to break this, right?
Yes
Well, I guess if MS produces a SMB update that breaks SAMBA completely and on purpose you'll be cheering that move too?
Nope. But it would still be their right to do, despite my displeasure.
Heck, what ever happened to my right to tinker with equipment I own?
So you personally are all that is Palm? Because Palm is who I am talking about.
They do have the right to tinker with their equipment while they own it. clearly they did. Apple has the right to tinker with iTunes, and they do. You have the right to tinker with something you own, as long as you own it. When it is sitting on the store shelf, it is not yours. Once you purchase it, it is, and you can violate USB spec to your hearts content. You wouldn't have the right to blame everyone else but you for what breaks when you tinker however, like you are doing now.
I should be able to tell my phone/pda whatever to fake its USB ID as I please. Its going in my equipment. Heaven forbid we mention the rights of the people who actually own the equipment in this "debate."
Again you imply you are Palm. Since that is who we are talking about. If you really are the Palm CEO, stop being a jerkoff. If you aren't, try staying on topic.
The larger issue here is the pro-corporatist attitude so many people have and how they are bending over backwards for the companies that just want to control and lockdown their hardware for one end: profit. Apple isnt doing this to help you, but to sell more iphones.
iPod != iPhone != iTunes.
If you can't even see the one word of those three in the article and stay on topic, I am done...
If you think it is a good thing for Palm to use iTunes, then why the hell didn't Palm use iTunes, you know like all those other 3rd party players that work perfectly well with iTunes using the proper methods, like blackberry and windows mobile?
Apple did not 'lock out' Palm. Palm designed a broken (defined as broken by the USB spec) device, and purposely designed the Pre so it was impossible for their device to identify itself to the computer as a Pre. Palm purposely made the choice to design a product which is physically impossible to design any software for at all.
This isn't Apples fault any more than it is personally your fault.
Apple is abusing the ID in an attempt to stifle competition.
Clearly a troll post, so I don't expect a reply from you personally...
But how on earth is Apple publishing an API to interface with iTunes, which Palm purposly knowingly and willingly decided not to use, how on earth is that Apples fault??
Might as well blame Microsoft for abusing computers by not providing flawless compatibility with Linux and MacOS executables.
Apple welcomed Palm to use iTunes with a plugin with (free) open arms. Palm said fuck off Palm designed their Pre so it can not identify itself to the computer as a Pre, and thus it is impossible to create ANY software that is 100% compatible.
Apple has no control over the design process of the Pre, no matter how much you want to blame them for it.
You started off arguing for Apple against Palm by talking about standards needing to be followed which Palm is not doing.
Then you switched to arguing against Apple (but still not for Palm) because you dislike iPods personally.
I guess in the end the issue with following standards is more important than one persons opinion of one product of one company.
So I agree with you that Palm fucked up here by violating standards and trying to wall you into their Pre garden or something.
Oh, and to correct one of your statements, Apple does integrate with 3rd parties with open arms. They did so with blackberry, Microsoft, and a few others. The iTunes APIs are published by Apple. I don't know if any license fee is involved, but I didn't think so. Don't quote me on that last bit though.
Start talking about taxes and suddenly you think Microsoft is the good guy for evading them? Why the libertarian hate-on for government?
It probably has to do with the fact that not one of you people claiming Microsoft tax evasion can cite even ONE example of Microsoft tax evasion. In fact, most of you claiming this have shown examples of the reverse!
It doesn't matter that we collectively hate Microsoft for their shoddy software doings. We are still nerds however, and hate "wrong" even more. And you are wrong.
If Washington can collect tax above and beyond what they defined in their own laws, that means each and every state is allowed to collect taxes from anyone, above and beyond their tax law. It's freaking bad enough I have to learn about each states tax law that IS on the books, which I do business in... But to think any state can at will just claim made up numbers for extra tax that is not defined in the law or anywhere else for that matter... that is scary.
How would your paycheck fare if each state taxed you personally an extra $1000 a year, for doing some action that 10 levels away has an effect in the other state?
We have enough "laws" that are enforced but not defined in the law. Stop begging for even more of them!
this seems to presume that you believe that if the content production cost is not wholly covered by advertising revenue, that the news organization should just eat the difference.
It's actually the other way around.
If your content is worth selling, then sell it for a price to recoup your costs AND make profit.
Do not sell it at me at a loss and then bitch and moan I am stealing your crap by not responding to the hundreds of ads trying to get more money out of me after the fact I already paid your (first) chosen price.
If your price is too high that no one will buy it when set correctly, then either perhaps your competition really is making a much better product than you, or your product just isn't seen as valuable or desirable to the public as you thought, and ads will not change that.
It doesn't matter how awesome of a product you have to sell. If you aren't capable of taking two numbers, subtracting them, and seeing if the result is above zero, then you will not do well at a business.
If something costs me $10 to make, and I sell it to you for less than $10, that is called me screwing up. Me screwing up does not give me the right or excuse to call you up daily every day afterward and beg you for donations or more money, because you already paid and the deal is done. nd if I did do such a thing, you have every right to be annoyed with me.
Likewise, if I purchase a car for very cheap, and later the ex-owner comes back realizing he could have gotten another thousand dollars out of me. He should not be shocked when I am both upset at him, and chasing him off my property.
Most places use advertisements for exactly and only that purpose.
Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.
You can't just throw hardware (or money) at a problem and expect things to work. You have to know what you're doing, and set things up properly (i.e. follow best practices).
You clearly have never worked for or at 90% of the companies out there.
Things being setup properly and by best standards does not often come into play.
Businesses aren't around to make their direct competitors feel cuddly and warm.
Unless the business is a laundromat, and they commonly put their competitors in the dryer with a fabric sheet or two. You should try it, it's loads of fun.
God/nature/FSM/evolution/al gore/$deity has done a pretty damn good job at building our brains, why are we trying to reinvent that wheel in a computer?
Because one could imagine that if we actually do have the ability to reinvent a mind, that we might also be able to improve upon it. And we will not know if we can or can not create a mind until we try to do so.
If that is possible, then that better mind could arguably invent a mind better than itself, that much more better than ours. Human kind would no longer be the bottle neck of technological achievement.
Now if we could also then just manage to not be stupid like usual and piss those minds off, they might even play nice and share their awesome toys with us:P
A much better way is to have a utility dedicated to maintaining a conduit system and/or the poles. This way only one entity would ever need granted right-of-way.
This utility would not be allowed to use its conduits on its own. They would be rented out to anyone, big phone co's and mom&pop ISPs alike. Also only the utilities employees will be allowed to maintain the conduits, to prevent our current anti-competitive wire cutting problem.
We already mostly maintain a sewer system of conduits currently, and the new system would be similar, but for obvious reasons separate conduits.
Sadly this will never happen short of designing a new city from scratch, and even then there are old school political and corporate bodies in place with vested interests to never allow such a thing.
Since AFAIK TI doesn't sell copyrighted software that is protected by DRM
Selling software is not a requirement for copyright protection, nor for copyright limits to kick in when someone wishes to distribute it.
In that case, TI most certainly does distribute copyrighted and DRM protected software. This whole project is specifically for brute forcing the encryption keys that DRM uses.
As BS as the DMCA is as a law, this sadly falls squarely under that law as a violation.
Personally, due to the fact I feel the DMCA is an immoral and unconstitutional law, I always ignore it. I just don't care. But might as well let the ISP/hosting provider have the paperwork filed so they can tell these people to fuck off and talk to a judge instead.
Five years? That's the sort of sentence we hand out for burglary or aggravated assault. This is not a man who is a danger to society.
First sentence, I agree. And the amount of jail time is the only thing left actually to question, and I will not be presumptuous enough to correct it. Actually most of your post I agree with...
Second sentence however, no, he clearly IS a danger to society. Not for anything computer related of course. But he is stalking his ex-girlfriend. He most certainly needs punished accordingly.
Any person that is not capable of controlling their actions based on their emotions is unpredictable and dangerous. On top of that, and the key point, he has proven he will act out on those emotions, putting aside all rational thought. THAT is why he is a danger to society (or at least the small portion of society that he has ever dated or talked sweetly to him.)
Now, I too agree that it would be much much better in our society to offer help for people with emotional problems, instead of putting them in a situation guaranteed to cause more of them and produce a better criminal from it. That just is never going to happen. The humans doing the punishing are equally as irrational as those being punished, and so revenge will always be the primary concern for those people. It's not right, it's just a sad truth.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm saying, if email means that much to someone (it means a lot to me, for example), then they should not be so casual about who their email provider is. There's plenty of options for striking a balance between convenience, cost, and guarantees of service and privacy.
And that entire point is moot.
Replace 'gmail' with 'any ISP physically located in the USA'. They all have the exact same problem with the law that google did here.
And any ISP *NOT* in the USA is going to have a similar but different problem, one that was already pointed out.
You can be as un-casual as you want about whom you put your email with, but the same result will happen.
Thus, your solution will result in the same exact thing (account being locked by court order), the only difference is you just put a ton of effort and work into moving your email before the new account is locked down as well.
(IE: No solution what so ever)
That's what Firefox with the IE Tab add-in is for. If you have control of your IT infrastructure, why settle for the intrusive kludge of Chrome Frame?
Because it is very difficult to maintain a firefox deployment on a windows network.
Active directory and Group policy are tied in deep with IE. Firefox, not so much.
There are third parties that make the required MSI installers, at least for the browser.
Settings can not be pushed out through group policy, they have to be configured in advance and placed in the MSI installer.
This basically means you use the same method to push out the software, as you use to push configuration changes.
It does get the job done. It just isn't pretty. It also conflicts with anyone who has installed firefox manually, occasionally just blowing away profiles (only happened 3 times out of 150 workstations, so not too bad really, given firefox has done this by itself to me more than once in the past in a regular install)
Personally, I feel the pain of deployment is well worth the benefits of having firefox for internet browsing and IE only for intranet/webapps.
I'd love to believe Microsoft about the IE8 sandboxing security, but they are not exactly trustworthy at all in that area.
Plus we have the added problem of skipping vista for win7, so are currently still using XP with server 2003 backends.
Props to the maintainers of the MSI versions of firefox for corporate deployment however. Still far to go, but definately lots of progress has already been made.
The point is however, a lot of MS only shops will want to stick with the well integrated MS only tools. These tools exclude most all 3rd party software, so IE it is. And this seems to be a very good way to improve IE's security without resorting to maintaining a painful firefox deployment.
If I wanted 3000 bugs swarming inside my computer i'd run Windows.
This is why, even with just one hard drive, I always load drivers for RAID.
Poetry aside, writing is to convey ideas and the value is in the ideas themselves, not really in the words and sentences.
And now technology has reduced the grammar nazi down to a very small shell script. The t-shirt prophecy has come true!
I don't know of one, but there is good bot prevention. It's called "Linux".
So in other words, you want me to replace our Windows workstaions that run our ERP software which runs most of the business, over to Linux workstations that will not run ERP software worth anything, so that our business has to shut down?
SmRT!
I have made some Linux deployments here, but sadly there is just no way to fully switch over without seriously major and long interruptions in the business processes.
Due to the ERP software using 'technologies' ranging from Access 2000 up to dotNET 3.0, this pretty much rules out Wine and CrossOver.
The only two methods I see available at the moment, are
a) Use vmware or the like for our ERP client. Still runs windows, still needs a license, etc etc. Not really solving the problem, nor worth the effort.
b) Upgrade/Add a Windows 2008 server (We use 2003 currently) which has the new Terminal Services (RDP 6.1) TS-RemoteApp where you can export applications instead of just full desktops.
This will let us seamlessly run the ERP client modeless on the Linux systems, where the software runs on the server, but the GUI looks native.
I do like the idea of B, but an upgrade to Win 2008 is not cheap, and while it would be an improvement (Keeping Windows off the desktop and away from the users), that will be a major chunk of budget for only minor benefits, with the possibility of major problems in the future.
The only upside is that to stay on the upgrade treadmill, going to Win2008 will need to happen eventually anyways.
Wide general sweeping statements though... Easy to prove wrong every time.
That is going to be _awesome_ once the local antivirus program deletes it off a system with stale exception lists :D
I swear there was a memo sent out that I didn't get.. because this is the fifth person here claiming that Apple published an API to interface with iTunes. Provide a link to the documentation for this published API... because as far as I can tell, it doesn't actually exist.
The documentation also comes with the iTunes SDK download, but if you have a developer account on apples website, login first and then go to: http://developer.apple.com/sdk/itunescomsdk.html
it's really a wonder that you can buy a single game over there that's any more graphic than cartoon bears throwing marshmallows at each other and then apologizing afterwards.
Ooooh, that must be the new Canadian Wolfenstein version!
* Sorry in advance to our northerly neighbors! I really do <3 you *
Right so when AIM was mimicking AOL's protocol and not the public OSCAR protocol because of the lack of features it was okay,
No, not at all.
but when palm does it, its wrong.
yes
And Apple has the right to change their software to break this, right?
Yes
Well, I guess if MS produces a SMB update that breaks SAMBA completely and on purpose you'll be cheering that move too?
Nope. But it would still be their right to do, despite my displeasure.
Heck, what ever happened to my right to tinker with equipment I own?
So you personally are all that is Palm? Because Palm is who I am talking about.
They do have the right to tinker with their equipment while they own it. clearly they did.
Apple has the right to tinker with iTunes, and they do.
You have the right to tinker with something you own, as long as you own it. When it is sitting on the store shelf, it is not yours. Once you purchase it, it is, and you can violate USB spec to your hearts content. You wouldn't have the right to blame everyone else but you for what breaks when you tinker however, like you are doing now.
I should be able to tell my phone/pda whatever to fake its USB ID as I please. Its going in my equipment. Heaven forbid we mention the rights of the people who actually own the equipment in this "debate."
Again you imply you are Palm. Since that is who we are talking about.
If you really are the Palm CEO, stop being a jerkoff.
If you aren't, try staying on topic.
The larger issue here is the pro-corporatist attitude so many people have and how they are bending over backwards for the companies that just want to control and lockdown their hardware for one end: profit. Apple isnt doing this to help you, but to sell more iphones.
iPod != iPhone != iTunes.
If you can't even see the one word of those three in the article and stay on topic, I am done...
but in the market of portable music players, Apple are a monopoly.
Care to paste a URL to the court case that was decided in?
So tell me.
If you think it is a good thing for Palm to use iTunes, then why the hell didn't Palm use iTunes, you know like all those other 3rd party players that work perfectly well with iTunes using the proper methods, like blackberry and windows mobile?
Apple did not 'lock out' Palm. Palm designed a broken (defined as broken by the USB spec) device, and purposely designed the Pre so it was impossible for their device to identify itself to the computer as a Pre.
Palm purposely made the choice to design a product which is physically impossible to design any software for at all.
This isn't Apples fault any more than it is personally your fault.
Apple is abusing the ID in an attempt to stifle competition.
Clearly a troll post, so I don't expect a reply from you personally...
But how on earth is Apple publishing an API to interface with iTunes, which Palm purposly knowingly and willingly decided not to use, how on earth is that Apples fault??
Might as well blame Microsoft for abusing computers by not providing flawless compatibility with Linux and MacOS executables.
Apple welcomed Palm to use iTunes with a plugin with (free) open arms.
Palm said fuck off
Palm designed their Pre so it can not identify itself to the computer as a Pre, and thus it is impossible to create ANY software that is 100% compatible.
Apple has no control over the design process of the Pre, no matter how much you want to blame them for it.
Your post is confusing.
You started off arguing for Apple against Palm by talking about standards needing to be followed which Palm is not doing.
Then you switched to arguing against Apple (but still not for Palm) because you dislike iPods personally.
I guess in the end the issue with following standards is more important than one persons opinion of one product of one company.
So I agree with you that Palm fucked up here by violating standards and trying to wall you into their Pre garden or something.
Oh, and to correct one of your statements, Apple does integrate with 3rd parties with open arms.
They did so with blackberry, Microsoft, and a few others.
The iTunes APIs are published by Apple. I don't know if any license fee is involved, but I didn't think so. Don't quote me on that last bit though.
Start talking about taxes and suddenly you think Microsoft is the good guy for evading them? Why the libertarian hate-on for government?
It probably has to do with the fact that not one of you people claiming Microsoft tax evasion can cite even ONE example of Microsoft tax evasion. In fact, most of you claiming this have shown examples of the reverse!
It doesn't matter that we collectively hate Microsoft for their shoddy software doings.
We are still nerds however, and hate "wrong" even more. And you are wrong.
If Washington can collect tax above and beyond what they defined in their own laws, that means each and every state is allowed to collect taxes from anyone, above and beyond their tax law.
It's freaking bad enough I have to learn about each states tax law that IS on the books, which I do business in... But to think any state can at will just claim made up numbers for extra tax that is not defined in the law or anywhere else for that matter... that is scary.
How would your paycheck fare if each state taxed you personally an extra $1000 a year, for doing some action that 10 levels away has an effect in the other state?
We have enough "laws" that are enforced but not defined in the law. Stop begging for even more of them!
this seems to presume that you believe that if the content production cost is not wholly covered by advertising revenue, that the news organization should just eat the difference.
It's actually the other way around.
If your content is worth selling, then sell it for a price to recoup your costs AND make profit.
Do not sell it at me at a loss and then bitch and moan I am stealing your crap by not responding to the hundreds of ads trying to get more money out of me after the fact I already paid your (first) chosen price.
If your price is too high that no one will buy it when set correctly, then either perhaps your competition really is making a much better product than you, or your product just isn't seen as valuable or desirable to the public as you thought, and ads will not change that.
It doesn't matter how awesome of a product you have to sell. If you aren't capable of taking two numbers, subtracting them, and seeing if the result is above zero, then you will not do well at a business.
If something costs me $10 to make, and I sell it to you for less than $10, that is called me screwing up. Me screwing up does not give me the right or excuse to call you up daily every day afterward and beg you for donations or more money, because you already paid and the deal is done. nd if I did do such a thing, you have every right to be annoyed with me.
Likewise, if I purchase a car for very cheap, and later the ex-owner comes back realizing he could have gotten another thousand dollars out of me. He should not be shocked when I am both upset at him, and chasing him off my property.
Most places use advertisements for exactly and only that purpose.
Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.
You can't just throw hardware (or money) at a problem and expect things to work. You have to know what you're doing, and set things up properly (i.e. follow best practices).
You clearly have never worked for or at 90% of the companies out there.
Things being setup properly and by best standards does not often come into play.
Businesses aren't around to make their direct competitors feel cuddly and warm.
Unless the business is a laundromat, and they commonly put their competitors in the dryer with a fabric sheet or two. You should try it, it's loads of fun.
God/nature/FSM/evolution/al gore/$deity has done a pretty damn good job at building our brains, why are we trying to reinvent that wheel in a computer?
Because one could imagine that if we actually do have the ability to reinvent a mind, that we might also be able to improve upon it. And we will not know if we can or can not create a mind until we try to do so.
If that is possible, then that better mind could arguably invent a mind better than itself, that much more better than ours.
Human kind would no longer be the bottle neck of technological achievement.
Now if we could also then just manage to not be stupid like usual and piss those minds off, they might even play nice and share their awesome toys with us :P
A much better way is to have a utility dedicated to maintaining a conduit system and/or the poles.
This way only one entity would ever need granted right-of-way.
This utility would not be allowed to use its conduits on its own. They would be rented out to anyone, big phone co's and mom&pop ISPs alike. Also only the utilities employees will be allowed to maintain the conduits, to prevent our current anti-competitive wire cutting problem.
We already mostly maintain a sewer system of conduits currently, and the new system would be similar, but for obvious reasons separate conduits.
Sadly this will never happen short of designing a new city from scratch, and even then there are old school political and corporate bodies in place with vested interests to never allow such a thing.
We can dream still...
Isn't Moores Law great?
We went from "58008" upside down, to using the embedded web browser to load porntube :P
Since AFAIK TI doesn't sell copyrighted software that is protected by DRM
Selling software is not a requirement for copyright protection, nor for copyright limits to kick in when someone wishes to distribute it.
In that case, TI most certainly does distribute copyrighted and DRM protected software.
This whole project is specifically for brute forcing the encryption keys that DRM uses.
As BS as the DMCA is as a law, this sadly falls squarely under that law as a violation.
Personally, due to the fact I feel the DMCA is an immoral and unconstitutional law, I always ignore it. I just don't care. But might as well let the ISP/hosting provider have the paperwork filed so they can tell these people to fuck off and talk to a judge instead.
There's a difference between being fired and laid off.
Yes, on one the company pays part of your unemployment benifits, and with the other it does not.
Firing is just a cheaper version of laying someone off.
Site contains images of organs. Don't follow if you don't want to see
http://wegotussomemedicalwaste.com/
While not full bodies, you can order some parts ;}
That what happens when you read the data back in without a cat present.
Five years? That's the sort of sentence we hand out for burglary or aggravated assault. This is not a man who is a danger to society.
First sentence, I agree. And the amount of jail time is the only thing left actually to question, and I will not be presumptuous enough to correct it.
Actually most of your post I agree with...
Second sentence however, no, he clearly IS a danger to society. Not for anything computer related of course. But he is stalking his ex-girlfriend. He most certainly needs punished accordingly.
Any person that is not capable of controlling their actions based on their emotions is unpredictable and dangerous. On top of that, and the key point, he has proven he will act out on those emotions, putting aside all rational thought. THAT is why he is a danger to society (or at least the small portion of society that he has ever dated or talked sweetly to him.)
Now, I too agree that it would be much much better in our society to offer help for people with emotional problems, instead of putting them in a situation guaranteed to cause more of them and produce a better criminal from it.
That just is never going to happen. The humans doing the punishing are equally as irrational as those being punished, and so revenge will always be the primary concern for those people.
It's not right, it's just a sad truth.