I am Canadian and I have to say I agree with your statement there. The police in this case argued they identified themselves and thus this gentleman shot the cop in cold blood. This is funny because if they were planning a drug bust they are not likely to run into a home and immediately shout POLICE.
I have read this article which was posted above.
http://reason.com/archives/2006/10/01/the-case-of-cory-maye
Interesting read. One note which seems to have been missed is the fact that he ran into his 18- Month Old child's room with the gun. Not Just his own room. This is a retreat and a means of protection if I have ever heard one.
I think this quote really summarizes this whole case and sheds ot light how ridiculous it all is:
"...To convict Maye, the jury had to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a man with no criminal record, a man who had just moved out of his parents’ home to make a life with his daughter and girlfriend, a man who had only a minuscule amount of marijuana in his apartment, looked out the window to see a team of police officers was about to enter; decided to take them on, even though he had done nothing wrong; waited for them to forcibly enter his home; fired three shots, killing just one of them; and then surrendered, leaving four bullets still in his gun...."
One could argue that a small amount of marijuana is technically something wrong but as it states in an earlier portion of this article in his township/ state it would have been a $50 dollar fine at best.
I am not certain of the Canadian laws here but if I am not mistaken there is at least one country in the EU who banned the use of open WiFi networks didn't they? If I were to use an open WiFi network in Germany and HACK into a government office or do something else illegal does the law protect the open WiFi owner and allow them to claim ignorance? or does it hold them partially responsible?
I have to agree with the posting above. Google didn't run around the EU cracking WEP keys.They happened to capture data about WIDE OPEN networks which are broadcasting their signals for all to access openly and freely.
well written. I would suspect there is a reason they have not been mandated yet though. I am not certain what that reason is but it makes sense they should have some boundaries.
Like in any software Google built this capability in on purpose. It is always better to build more and use less rather than having to redo it all later. Now if it was turned on by mistake or not who cares?!?! It was turned on and captured. This is no different than the 15 year old next door using the WiFi from his bedroom.
I agree with many of the other posters. Open WiFi means you're bound to have someone else jump on and use it.
RTFM and stop complaining.
1 Million units in 30 days (rounding up from 28)
Based on sales alone from now until December 3rd would equal 7 million units alone. In addition, I would argue that sales from December 3rd to January 3rd would either increase or maintain current levels due to the holiday rush. Lets just for arguments sake say from Dec 3 to Dec 31 is another 1 Million sold.
That makes 8 million units sold from now until the end of 2010 based on the current sales numbers not decreasing. Now include the 1 Million already sold to date and that totals 9 Million since its release date by the end of 2010. That is 27 percent of sales not 12 percent.
Mathematics aside I believe we need to take into consideration the fact that this is a new product and with any new product which has an established user base there will always be a surge in sales at the beginning (For example: XBox 360 & Wii). So to play a bit of a devils advocate I would argue that sales at this steep of a curve for the remainder of 2010 excluding November-December are unlikely. I am not saying impossible just unlikely.
Something else to seriously consider here. Those Netbook sales are across multiple companies unfortunately I could not find the volume distribution cited in the article by company but unless a single Netbook manufacturer is selling 10 million+ Netbooks per year then Apple has a huge profit surge due to iPad sales. I would say yet another successful Apple product launch.
Its to bad they haven't and won't sell one to me
Perhaps a form of medical registration or something of the like would do well here. If something like the Wii does hold medical relevance and can help someone get better (this has been clearly proven by the Wii) then their should be some form of formal registration process for common items and have the insurance company work from that. I think for certain items like the Wii which also double as an entertainment system there should be some sort of regimented progress requirement to ensure your Wii fit time isn't spent playing Call of Duty or Mario Cart.
There was a seal clubbing app which was just rejected yesterday I believe by Apple. Again only to repeat what has already been asked simply because if it is repeated and read enough perhaps someone can come up with Apple's logic. What makes one app done in poor taste better than another?
In some of the documentation I have read on this trial there was mention that his boss' boss requested the passwords in a public forum with others either listening via conference call, or physically in the room or both. Those other people may have been their at the boss' boss request but I would argue they were not authorized personnel. Especially if they were listening in via a conference call. You have no idea who is on the other end of that phone or in their area listening in. I cannot find information specifically on the law which Terry Childs was being charged under but does it mention what methods of communication can be used by those Authorized Personnel to request or obtain passwords? With Evolving technologies I know this will be difficult to define specifically but I would assume some wording around secure methods of communications must be used. I suppose I would pose an alternative question to the comments above. If Mr. Child's gave those passwords in that open setting (assuming that is how they were requested) and something went wrong. Would these same laws protect him from prosecution? If the answer is 'No' then since there was no readily available policy stating who was actually deemed an "Authorized user" then I think it was a fair judgment call to request the password be given to the mayor who I understand to be his Boss' Boss' boss as the current setting was not deemed secure.
Even if this is true. I am certain we can find dozens of cases where average citizens have been charged with any or all of the charges above with similar situations. I personally agree with making an example of those officers who provided false information. The bigger question remains though how many officers are involved in providing false information to average citizens and more importantly how high up in the organization does it go?
Something else which concerns me is how many criminals can now claim they were not provided details and get a new-trial?
The entertainment industry might not be for them. Either that or they must find alternative methods which suit their individual needs which can still make them money. If they can't make money then it looks like the entertainment industry for that person is best left as a hobby.
Maybe this is just a North American mentality but if someone is offering you a service and as part of the venue and your paying coat check staff a wage to be there I would expect to pay for that service as a customer. I realize that 4 bucks to check my coat is a profit machine but at the end of the day it enables me as a fan to enjoy the music and concerts I want to see without the hassle of my coat being in the way.
The point which is being made here is that the entertainment industry in general should be treated the same as any other retail business. If your sales are not higher than your expenses then you have a failing business model. Find alternate ways to make income to support that business (like a coat check fee, or raise the cost of parking by a dollar) to cover those costs.
I suppose the point I am trying to make here is the exact same as BlackBlog's. You have a failing business model. FIX IT or go bust.
They left to a company which was their own making chips. Apple also acquires chips. Google bought out their company. Technically their previous company would or could have been deemed a competitor. I hope Apple tries to sue and looses.
rather than a lawsuit I smell an innovative product coming to market soon.
Think of the situation. You have fired him. He is no longer allowed on the premise. Now you're approaching him asking for information on your network...I would expect it to be your responsibility prior to termination or immediately after termination to acquire the needed information.
I totally agree. My main question is why can't Google publish those requests from China if they are no longer operating in that country? If China wishes to do business with Google by making requests to remove content then they must now abide my American Law and Google policy.
I was accused of cheating in college on an assignment when I never did. Apparently some kid in one of the other classes had some code similar to mine. We had never met. Automation for this sort of thing is a great guideline but should never be taken as the final review.
Why not just have a 20 dollar tax per person per year to pay into a pool. That pool will allow an average citizen to have access to unlimited content for official releases made by artists. The RIAA can then use technologies like bittorrent to distribute this content so they aren't paying a high cost for distribution. Taking this idea further, added content for those fans who really like a band could be purchased. Things such as bonus tracks, outtakes & live releases of concerts for 2-3 bucks for 15 tracks.
Competition could still exist in this system too as a small fee from the pool would end up with the label which the artist was a member of. In the case of indie bands the band itself would sign up as a label and get the same fees paid to them.
and just think when you have a system outage you can make cardboard cut-outs....ZAP! BAM! and ZOMG!
Further more Google will already be duking it out with the Penguin come CromeOS
I couldn't find an answer to this in the article posted but does this patch notify the end user as to why the patch was not installed? After reading it it looked like the patches just simply wouldn't install and it was left to the end user to manually go back and verify that the patches wouldn't install. Rather than an informative message prompting on the screen.
Slashdot Mirror
I am Canadian and I have to say I agree with your statement there. The police in this case argued they identified themselves and thus this gentleman shot the cop in cold blood. This is funny because if they were planning a drug bust they are not likely to run into a home and immediately shout POLICE. I have read this article which was posted above. http://reason.com/archives/2006/10/01/the-case-of-cory-maye Interesting read. One note which seems to have been missed is the fact that he ran into his 18- Month Old child's room with the gun. Not Just his own room. This is a retreat and a means of protection if I have ever heard one. I think this quote really summarizes this whole case and sheds ot light how ridiculous it all is: "...To convict Maye, the jury had to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a man with no criminal record, a man who had just moved out of his parents’ home to make a life with his daughter and girlfriend, a man who had only a minuscule amount of marijuana in his apartment, looked out the window to see a team of police officers was about to enter; decided to take them on, even though he had done nothing wrong; waited for them to forcibly enter his home; fired three shots, killing just one of them; and then surrendered, leaving four bullets still in his gun. ..."
One could argue that a small amount of marijuana is technically something wrong but as it states in an earlier portion of this article in his township/ state it would have been a $50 dollar fine at best.
I am not certain of the Canadian laws here but if I am not mistaken there is at least one country in the EU who banned the use of open WiFi networks didn't they? If I were to use an open WiFi network in Germany and HACK into a government office or do something else illegal does the law protect the open WiFi owner and allow them to claim ignorance? or does it hold them partially responsible? I have to agree with the posting above. Google didn't run around the EU cracking WEP keys.They happened to capture data about WIDE OPEN networks which are broadcasting their signals for all to access openly and freely.
for legal battles to begin. Grab the bull (Facebook) by the horns and FU&K it up the arse. Now there is a bone we can all appreciate.
well written. I would suspect there is a reason they have not been mandated yet though. I am not certain what that reason is but it makes sense they should have some boundaries.
Like in any software Google built this capability in on purpose. It is always better to build more and use less rather than having to redo it all later. Now if it was turned on by mistake or not who cares?!?! It was turned on and captured. This is no different than the 15 year old next door using the WiFi from his bedroom. I agree with many of the other posters. Open WiFi means you're bound to have someone else jump on and use it. RTFM and stop complaining.
1 Million units in 30 days (rounding up from 28) Based on sales alone from now until December 3rd would equal 7 million units alone. In addition, I would argue that sales from December 3rd to January 3rd would either increase or maintain current levels due to the holiday rush. Lets just for arguments sake say from Dec 3 to Dec 31 is another 1 Million sold. That makes 8 million units sold from now until the end of 2010 based on the current sales numbers not decreasing. Now include the 1 Million already sold to date and that totals 9 Million since its release date by the end of 2010. That is 27 percent of sales not 12 percent. Mathematics aside I believe we need to take into consideration the fact that this is a new product and with any new product which has an established user base there will always be a surge in sales at the beginning (For example: XBox 360 & Wii). So to play a bit of a devils advocate I would argue that sales at this steep of a curve for the remainder of 2010 excluding November-December are unlikely. I am not saying impossible just unlikely. Something else to seriously consider here. Those Netbook sales are across multiple companies unfortunately I could not find the volume distribution cited in the article by company but unless a single Netbook manufacturer is selling 10 million+ Netbooks per year then Apple has a huge profit surge due to iPad sales. I would say yet another successful Apple product launch. Its to bad they haven't and won't sell one to me
What are the emissions of a units like this? I addition how much energy is spent in creating these pellets versus the amount of energy they produce.
Perhaps a form of medical registration or something of the like would do well here. If something like the Wii does hold medical relevance and can help someone get better (this has been clearly proven by the Wii) then their should be some form of formal registration process for common items and have the insurance company work from that. I think for certain items like the Wii which also double as an entertainment system there should be some sort of regimented progress requirement to ensure your Wii fit time isn't spent playing Call of Duty or Mario Cart.
you've missed the entire point of the quoted text above. Shame on you.
There was a seal clubbing app which was just rejected yesterday I believe by Apple. Again only to repeat what has already been asked simply because if it is repeated and read enough perhaps someone can come up with Apple's logic. What makes one app done in poor taste better than another?
In some of the documentation I have read on this trial there was mention that his boss' boss requested the passwords in a public forum with others either listening via conference call, or physically in the room or both. Those other people may have been their at the boss' boss request but I would argue they were not authorized personnel. Especially if they were listening in via a conference call. You have no idea who is on the other end of that phone or in their area listening in. I cannot find information specifically on the law which Terry Childs was being charged under but does it mention what methods of communication can be used by those Authorized Personnel to request or obtain passwords? With Evolving technologies I know this will be difficult to define specifically but I would assume some wording around secure methods of communications must be used. I suppose I would pose an alternative question to the comments above. If Mr. Child's gave those passwords in that open setting (assuming that is how they were requested) and something went wrong. Would these same laws protect him from prosecution? If the answer is 'No' then since there was no readily available policy stating who was actually deemed an "Authorized user" then I think it was a fair judgment call to request the password be given to the mayor who I understand to be his Boss' Boss' boss as the current setting was not deemed secure.
Even if this is true. I am certain we can find dozens of cases where average citizens have been charged with any or all of the charges above with similar situations. I personally agree with making an example of those officers who provided false information. The bigger question remains though how many officers are involved in providing false information to average citizens and more importantly how high up in the organization does it go? Something else which concerns me is how many criminals can now claim they were not provided details and get a new-trial?
The entertainment industry might not be for them. Either that or they must find alternative methods which suit their individual needs which can still make them money. If they can't make money then it looks like the entertainment industry for that person is best left as a hobby.
Maybe this is just a North American mentality but if someone is offering you a service and as part of the venue and your paying coat check staff a wage to be there I would expect to pay for that service as a customer. I realize that 4 bucks to check my coat is a profit machine but at the end of the day it enables me as a fan to enjoy the music and concerts I want to see without the hassle of my coat being in the way. The point which is being made here is that the entertainment industry in general should be treated the same as any other retail business. If your sales are not higher than your expenses then you have a failing business model. Find alternate ways to make income to support that business (like a coat check fee, or raise the cost of parking by a dollar) to cover those costs. I suppose the point I am trying to make here is the exact same as BlackBlog's. You have a failing business model. FIX IT or go bust.
They left to a company which was their own making chips. Apple also acquires chips. Google bought out their company. Technically their previous company would or could have been deemed a competitor. I hope Apple tries to sue and looses. rather than a lawsuit I smell an innovative product coming to market soon.
http://www.cio.com.au/article/255165/sorting_facts_terry_childs_case?pp=1&fp=&fpid=
Think of the situation. You have fired him. He is no longer allowed on the premise. Now you're approaching him asking for information on your network...I would expect it to be your responsibility prior to termination or immediately after termination to acquire the needed information.
well said.
I totally agree. My main question is why can't Google publish those requests from China if they are no longer operating in that country? If China wishes to do business with Google by making requests to remove content then they must now abide my American Law and Google policy.
or pay the replacement costs based on the original 1789 value. Then auction them off for a huge profit.
I was accused of cheating in college on an assignment when I never did. Apparently some kid in one of the other classes had some code similar to mine. We had never met. Automation for this sort of thing is a great guideline but should never be taken as the final review.
Why not just have a 20 dollar tax per person per year to pay into a pool. That pool will allow an average citizen to have access to unlimited content for official releases made by artists. The RIAA can then use technologies like bittorrent to distribute this content so they aren't paying a high cost for distribution. Taking this idea further, added content for those fans who really like a band could be purchased. Things such as bonus tracks, outtakes & live releases of concerts for 2-3 bucks for 15 tracks. Competition could still exist in this system too as a small fee from the pool would end up with the label which the artist was a member of. In the case of indie bands the band itself would sign up as a label and get the same fees paid to them.
It is nice to see some form of unity when like causes arise. Funny how Microsoft didn't step up to....
and just think when you have a system outage you can make cardboard cut-outs....ZAP! BAM! and ZOMG! Further more Google will already be duking it out with the Penguin come CromeOS
I couldn't find an answer to this in the article posted but does this patch notify the end user as to why the patch was not installed? After reading it it looked like the patches just simply wouldn't install and it was left to the end user to manually go back and verify that the patches wouldn't install. Rather than an informative message prompting on the screen.