Well, the problem is, that everyone uses the phrase P2P. Don't expect Congress to lead the way here.
Apparently the entire tech world thought that Congress and the dozens of IP industries were going to sit back and let a major industry, a major exporter, and a major cash-center be Napsterized into oblivion.
BitTorrent is a great technology that is harmed thanks to the Kazaa's, edonkey's, and new age Napster wanna be's.
And unless the tech world shapes up and realizes that Congress isn't going to stop until this type of rampant infringement is curbed the steps will become more and more and more drastic.
i) I have the right to download MP3's, however, I do NOT have the right to distribute them -- this is handy because most MP3's come from international sources via p
Right, but if you are in a small band like two friends of mine, and you buy blank CDs to distribute your music, you are forced to fund your competition by paying an unfair tax.
As far as your healthcare, I have news for you. If you think that people in the United States do not get healthcare if uninsured you are wrong. The system provides care to all. I've worked in hospitals, and all people are treated.
The difference under the US system is that where some people get just basic care - not much worse than their poor Canadian counterparts - some people get very, very, very good care. The best care you can get anywhere in the world. This type of care would not be available to anyone else anywhere. For example, a sister in-law of a co-worker had a most-complicted pregnancy. She went to extremely premature labor, was rushed to the hospital where she delivered and the newborn was amount the half-dozen earliest premature babies to ever survive. The mother was in intensive care for several months. Several rare techniques that are unavailable outside the US were employed. Specialists from all over came to her aid. All told, the incidents generated well over $2.5M in medical bills. She paid 20% of the first $1000, and the rest was covered. $200 of $2.5M.
Canada is a fine country. But do not decieve yourself. America is still the premiere democracy in the world. And it still is a bastion of nearly unparelled freedom despite scare tactics and the internet-echo chamber of naysayings and phantoms of liberties lost.
And regular lawsuits against multiple people trading files online, including 12yo girls and grandparents who didn't even know that their grandkids had installed the software have worked too. But yep, a law will do the trick, heaven knows people won't break a law but are happy to risk financial ruin.
And those grandparents, there possesions were taken and they were incarcerated, right?
Ohh, no? They just had to stop running the software? Horror of horror.
Fact. If you illegally share copyrighted materials online you are in the wrong.
I am just seething with anger at your tone and accusation.
You are acting like such a child. People knowingly break the law and do so without regard for the victims of their actions deserve serious consequences. You make it seem like Congress is deciding that anyone who gets a drink during commericals is going to jail.
Ohh right, because God knows that if teenagers aren't allowed to trade copyrighted materials online with impunity progress has been halted worldwide.
Face it. The p2p makers said "huh, we cant get around your pesky copyright laws all we want!". And now Congress is saying "go ahead, make our day" while holding a big stick.
Well, given that the USA PATRIOT act allows sneak and peek searches, I would say that the liberty to feel safe from searches in your own home... (That would be your rights under the Fourth Amendment)
The Fourth Amendment does not gurantee you the right to be free from searches. It guarantees you a right to be free from unreasonable searches. The changes in the Patriot Act say that if any of 5 conditions are true, notification can be delayed to the citizen that they were searched. The authorties must show the judge that if the person to be searched is given notice, one of the five things will happen - (1) an individual's physical safety will be endangered, (2) someone will flee prosecution, (3) evidence will be tampered with, (4) potential witnesses will be intimidated or, (5) an investigation would be jeopardized or a trial unduly delayed. The fourth amendment does not guarantee you a right to know we have been searched. The authorities are still required to obtain a warrant, still required to go in front a judge. You are still protected from unreasonable searches and siezures. Knock that off your list.
Then there is the Sixth amendment rights to a fair, speedy public trial. Given that people held since 9/11 have been held without trial as "material witnesses", that the patriot act allows people to be held without access to legal defence... I think that might be number two. (I would point out that the sixth amendment does not say "Citizen".)
The Supreme Court decided that you cannot be held without charges. Even the prisoners of foreign birth held overseas now have access to lawyers and will be formally charged. As far as being held a material witness, this is nothing new. It has been part of the law since 1984. Any person who is detained as a material witness has a right to demand a hearing before a federal judge and the right to counsel, appointed at government expense, if necessary. A federal judge must determine whether the person is, in fact, a material witness and whether he may be detained. Detainment is required only if there is a risk of flight or danger. Again, not liberties or freedom have been lost.
Hmmm, well, technically, Congress hasn't made many laws on this. However, the rights enumerated under this have definitely been violated.
Well that is a bad sign you have no legitimate issue on this, but lets go ahead just in case you are right.
We'll start with the "free speech" zones. So that the president doesn't have to see any opposition, people who want to "Peaceably asemble" are herded into little cages around the corner out of sight.
"Free speech" zones are nothing new. In most parts of the country you have to apply for a permit to organize a large scale protest. Permits can be denied for a number of reasons. This has been throughly worked through in the courts. The first amendment does not guarantee you access to the President, it does not guarantee you the right to riot or be disorderly. It guartantees you the right to peacefully assemble. It does not guarantee you access to private property to protest. It has never guaranteed you an audience.
The military have "banned" certain types of photographs from being shown to the public... that sounds to me like the freedom of the press being violated.
No, they haven't. That is blantly false. There are a number of laws on the books for decades regarding the release of satellite photots, classified information, and the like. However, once released, the press can print them willy-nilly. The press is not criminally on the hook, just the person who released them. If you have a specific case in mind, please, by all means, provide some links.
Voter registrations in Ohio are being ignored because they are printed on the wrong paper, and voters in Florida are being unregistered because they have a similar name to someone who committed a felony in a different state. Both of those sound like they are an impedimen
Now, if the fact that the government can detain a you for years without ever filing a charge in court or proving any cause for holding you doesn't disturb you, then I guess you have nothing to worry about.
The government made a mistake. The issue was resolved in the courts, and the government responded to the appropriate authority.
An individual was illegally detained; the detention was challeneged in court, the individual was released unharmed.
How can you claim this is a liberty lost? The liberty lost would be if the man was not released. If the administration said no, we are not releasing him. Or if the court had ruled it was okay to hold him.
Everything here worked. You are not allowed to be held without charge, even if you are suspected terrorist.
In fact, we all have more liberty now that the Supreme Court has made this ruling.
Chalk this one up in the "liberties gained" column.
None of these are new. I've got news for you. Your reading habits have always been subject to investigation by the government.
If you are a suspected criminal the authorities investigate you. They can question witnesses and subpoena private records regarding your activities. During the Clinton impeachment debacle, for example, Monica Lewinsky's purchases at Barnes and Noble were obtained via subpoena.
As far as #3, this is also not new. For example, the FBI can obtain a warrant to wiretap my phones or monitor my bank account and neither my phone company nor bank can disclose this information. Why? Because knowing I was investigation would prompt me to destroy possible evidence, clean up my act, intimitade possible witnesses, or even flee.
Very few institutions or individuals ever have the "right" to not divulge information that the authorities deem to be relevant when armed with a warrant. These include your clergy person in a petitent setting, your attorney in most circumstances, and your doctor in a few circumstances. Your librarian has never had this right.
Finally, about #1. Having your name on a watch list is not illegal, and its not a violation of your rights. The government has a duty to investigate those suspected of crimes. Period. The FBI or any other agency does not the right or ability to monitor, wholesale, the activity of patrons of any given library. What they do have, and what is a new power, is the ability to obtain via administrative warrant your library records. To obtain this warrant an offical must swear and oath that he/she has reasonable suspicion that you are a material actor in a criminal act or conspiracy.
Nothing you bring up is any liberty lost. Having your name on a watch list or investigation list is not a violation of your rights. Your library has never been immune from disclosing your records. And suppliers of subpoenaed information have never been able to warn-off the target of an investigation.
1) Freedom of Speech has been drastically weakened. Anybody speaking out against the president's foreign policy is deemed unpatriotic.
Being called "unpatriotic" is not the same having your free speech suppressed. It is being called unpatriotic. "I think you are unpatriotic". There. Are you being repressed?
2) Protection from Illegal Search and Seizure. Goodbye to any sort of due process for terrorist suspects. There are STILL people in jail suspected of being terrorists, held without any real proof or more importantly a court date.
2) Protection from Illegal Search and Seizure. Goodbye to any sort of due process for terrorist suspects. There are STILL people in jail suspected of being terrorists, held without any real proof or more importantly a court date.
Is that so? The Supreme Court has ruled on this, and dteremined that this wouldn't stand, correct? Everyone has the right to challenege their detention in court.
3) Right to a fair trial? Not sure what this falls under, but naming American citizens enemy combatants and denying them all legal rights has surely got to be a violation of more than just common sense.
This isn't new. If you are operating as a foreign agent you have never been afforded protection. Are we required to give criminal trials to soliders captured during war? No. Are we required to give trials to sabtourers and spies caught behind enemy lines, unmarked as soliders? No. Under the Geneva Convention these people are subject to summary execution.
FBI agents do not need a court order to tap any of your communications.
As far as I can tell, that is completely false.
Wiretaps of all kinds must be approved by a court. Even the most basic forms of approval come in the form of an "administrative hearing" which involve a judge/justice and a government rep, all on the record.
What specifically do you have to backup your assertion that the FBI requires no court orders to tap communications?
I know you were trying to be ironic or sarcastic or whatever, but almost anyone can afford a used private aircraft. It's not much more expensive than a used car in many cases.
I want to know what law is violated by publishing crappy software. Is that so hard to understand?
The poster implied that this was almost criminally negligent. I want to know if he just made that up for dramatic effect or not.
For example, the definition of "criminal negligence" is:
gross deviation from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person that is manifest in a failure to protect others from a risk (as of death) deriving from one's conduct and that renders one criminally liable called also culpable negligence
I am asking what standard of care is expected from MS? And what is the manifest risk here?
Get it? What type of loser are you. Can't take discussion is it possibly maybe in someway disrupt your preconceived notions?
Aww. Imagine that. I am asking someone to backup a legal claim. Some people are actually lawyers, you know.
Yes, it does. Let's say that an OSS project linked to this system dll. Let's say MS took the drastic step of fixing the DLL, and breaking binary compatibility, which would cause an error in the OSS app.
Yeah, thats' great until it detects a possible flaw in a darling project of OSS, and then suddenely every news site including Slashdot writes about MS's "gravely threatening and disturbingly shrill monopoly practices".
All you need is to be organised . . ..
Except there is an issue of scalability. Our elecorate is 20 times larger than yours. We have enough polling places that you'd be baffled. We also have a different ballot in every district.
Hand-counting ballots doesn't scale worth a damn. Imagine if you had to find 20-50 times the number of people to count your ballots. It's a non-trivial operation.
100% ? Maybe not, but certainly more that four nines. Your suggestion of a 99% accuracy rate from machines is a red herring.
The difference in votes in Florida was less than 600.
That means that you need at least 99.99% accuracy or better to be within that margin of error.
Many countries have a system that works well with hand-marked ballots double-counted, etc. However, that is not practical when we are talking about 100 million votes. It's simply not. It scales well to a degree, but not to a 100 million votes.
Other states in the US have been even closer. A 100 vote margin is not unheard of in a state with 10 million votes. That means you need 99.999 accuracy or better to be within the margin.
You have to face it. When the number of votes gets within a small delta, you have a virtual tie. The will of the voters is impossible to project with 100% confidence. Can we really put someone into office with less than 100% confidence that the majority of people wanted that person in power? I say no.
What we need to do is have sometype of run-off, re-vote, re-do what have you until a definitive margin is reached.
If we are using equipment that averages 98% combined adjusted accuracy (undervotes, overvotes, missed votes, mutliple votes, malfunctions, etc) than it means that there is a legitimate range of 2,086,777 of votes that between an exact tie and a stastical tie.
The margin was in fact 543,895 votes. Even if the accuracy was 99% - some counties do have machines with that level of accuracy - the vote range would have to exceed 1,043,388 to be certain.
In Florida, the margin was so much closer than the margin in the entire country that it is impossible, and remain impossible, to determine what the true will of the voters was with 100% confidence.
The fact is that there is no voting technology currently used anywhere that can collect 6 million votes in one 12-hour day and tabulate them with a 100% accuracy rate.
If this country was a direct democracy Gore would have won, but he would have suffered the same pall of illegimaticy that Bush suffers from. Why?
Because you cannot in good science and conscience declare that the will of the people was for Gore or Bush to be President in 2000. The equipment does not support that conclusion. There were many other states that were almost as close as Florida.
Regardless of the form of election - our current system or a direct democracy, you cannot register a valid election when the number of votes between the two top candidates is below the margin of error for the equipment in use.
Corporations have rights that citizens do not
That's not true.
if I write a program that takes over your computer and spies on you -- I'm a hacker/terrorist
If it takes over your computer against the will of the user, than you are a "hacker" (well, that's not a real world, but still). If you did this with the intent of causing terror, you are a terrorist. If you did out of a sense of malicious intent, you are a criminal. Please show me three csaes were a "hacker" writing a virus/trojan was called a "terrorist" by a government offical.
A company does it -- its legit (spyware/adware).
If a company does it - to show ads or collect personal information - they've bundled it with a software package/website/service. The provider of the software/service has made an arrangement for money. The user is a willing party. In cases were the user is not a willing party the FTC will investigate. It is decidedly not legit. Congress has 4 bills on its next-term docket to deal with the issue. Several bills came up during the current Congress but were drawn too widely and were sent back for refinement.
Have you seen on TV advertisements for drug companies now selling drugs whose purpose is to "Provide positive energy?"
No, I haven't. I couldn't find any single reference by any major drug maker that claims this. However, somethngs to note. If a drug maker makes a claim of efficacy, it must be backed up in clinical trials. Side-effects must be disclosed. If the research is faulty the drug-maker is liable for damages, and in past cases these have caused billions. Now, if the trug you are talking about is consider a "homeopathic" treament, it does not require certification by the FDA. This means the drug must be of certain chemical potency and must not contain certain ingredients. The company is still liable, but does not have to prove efficacy. You are by law able to sell these same exact drugs.
Yet if I want to do the same thing with marijuana I'm the criminal?
Yes, you are. That's the law. You can't sell marijuana. Why? Because first off, you smoke it. Second off, it has a negative effect on youth. Third off, it has a long-history of causing all kinds of performance and health issues, not the least of which is motor control and driving deficienes. Countries with legal or nearly-legal marijuana have myraid problems with it. Parts of Amsterdam, for example, are very dangerous not least of the reasons being the drug culture. Beyond that, you make seem like corportions are out selling pot but you can't. And we know that's false.
For the record, selling bootlegs is wrong
Profiting against someones will off their work is wrong, regardless of the venue.
And so is everything the RIAA does.
No, thats provably false. The RIAA is validated by the massess. The music industry sells millions of records and is rather profitable. Logically that means something they are doing is filling a marketable demand. The RIAA does not profit against someones will from their work. Everything they sell has been contracted for legally. I am not a big fan of the RIAA, but you claiming they steal or whatnot is garbage. Everything the RIAA does you can legally do on your own just fine.
Sorry for the bile -- I've just had it with our country right now.
You haven't presented a single argument that makes any sense as to why.
For the record, this case is bad news. The situation is question is bound for an appeal that could rule in favor of more copyright. It is not a good sign when a court overrules law with a non-symapathetic plantiff. This issue has largely been decided in Ashcroft v. Eldred, and the appeals courts are unlikely to intervene for such an unworthy case.
Based on you've posted here, I am guessing you are a
If they say just because he was no longer needed, then what does the prosecution say?
This is an easy one. If your job was filled by someone else, then you bust them. Lying on top of the original offense. The judge will not be impressed. If you were really fired for some illegal reason and not because they didnt need you anymore someone else will be brought in to do your old job.
Where would you find those witnesses? If they still work there, they are likely to be hostile to you not sink their ship.
For one thing, if there were multiple peopel witnessing an incident, someone will talk. If they are harassed after testifying they also have a good case. If people are reluctant to testify the judge can seal the court and they can be provided as a John/Jane Doe. An affadavit will often also suffice. Usually the defandants will stipulate to whatever people swear to without much of a fight. Also, if anyone has subsequently left the company to go someplace else they are a good candidate for a witness.
How many programers let go because they we getting ready to draw retirement ever won one of these cases.
Many, many, many. Most of these cases never even get to court. They just get settled out of court, usually with something like 1 year severance plus a few grand for damages. There are thousands of succesful employment practices cases every year.
Even if you win the company can wear you down by stalling/appealing for years.
This only really happens when an employee gets greedy. If you are an honest person who honestly was discriminated illegally against you wont be going for a 2 million dollar payout. You are going to be going for (a) your job back, (b) 12-18 months wages plus reasonable damages (50% of pay, maybe), (c) an apology. All of things are cheaper than even filing one appeal. Appeals are only really used in big-stakes cases - cases where attrition is the goal.
The ones with the largest bankroll have the advantage here. Very, very occasionally do you ever here of the little guy winning.
I disagree. I designed and implemented a tracking system used by a group of laywers to track issues like this as they go through the legal system. It's amazing. The only times you see the little guy losing is when:
1. They fabricate all/part of their story, and then change it later.
2. They pre-meditate a lawsuit. For example saying "I hope my boss doesnt sexually harass me, I've already made my wishes clear in writing by certified letter four times.". This is thing judges frown on. Taunting/flaunting the legal system into working for you.
3. The get too greedy. If you are fired from your job illegally it doesnt mean you should be made rich enough to retire. Asking $1M in damages is silly. Judges don't like that.
In my home state the success rate (winning in court, getting a settlement, or being offered the job back) was well over 50%, probably approaching 66% last I knew.
It was not an invention or imposition of the court! This assertation is simply not correct
It was an invention of the court. The court require a judgement on the intent of the voter. No matter the marking or the mis-marking, the court said it must be assigned. The law you quoted and I referenced says that a vote may not be discounted if the intent is clear. The court expanded the Legislature's rule drastically. The PDF I linked to has a whole section on the this "may" vs" shall" distinction. The Legislature says that no vote with a clear intent should be ignored. The Court says that every must be counted. Big, big difference.
There was no danger of that. The legislature had the power to select electors directly. This would have been legally valid, and put Bush into office legitimately, but politically it would have been disasterous for both the legislature and Bush.
The point being that either way, Bush would have won. If the electors had been selected by the Legislature every single vote would have been discounted. Both SCOTUS and Florida Supreme Court believed this to be a much larger problem than any alternative.
I find that hard to beleive, as five minutes with Google found these.
These are people on the list. The list that was largely ignored. What I am looking for is a person who went to a polling place, was told he/she was not allowed to vote due to this felon list (improperly added to the list).
It makes no difference whether the counties in question were run by Democrats; a condtion where one citizen's vote is 95% likely to be registered while another's is 99.9% likely is a serious problem.
It is a serious problem. It is a problem caused by bad county politics. Of course, you cant blame Bush for these problems, even though people routinely do.
Irrelevant. The incompetence of a state offical of the same party as a candidate you wish to vote for doesn't change your right to vote.
County offical. But you are right. It doesn't change. But again, people blame this misconduct on Bush.
I would have said I would have been about 75% as pissed off; I had a visceral dislike of Bush that accounted for about an extra 25% piss-off factor
Well then, you are in the good side the population bitching about Florida 2000.
Florida in 2000 was a tie. A tie. At some point in the future people are going to have recognize it was a tie. And deal with the fact that close elections that come in under the margin of error need some type of run-off.
The Florida Supreme Court followed Florida law that the "clear intent of the voter" must be followed
Read the opinion. I have. Here is the link. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the Secretary of State must accept vote counts from county Canvassing board after the deadline set by the Law. (See See 102.166(5), Fla. Stat. (2000)). It demands that the intent of the voter be determined. Bush challenged this, saying that the Florida Supreme Court was wrong to impose this. The Florida Supreme Court claimed in its ruling it was not making election law, however, this precedent was never established by the Legislature. Furthermore, the courts assertion that the Secretary of State must accept tallies after the date the Legislature deemed to be the deadline was clearly, obviously, without a doubt, new law. The Supreme Court ruled that the same standard must apply to all votes and voters in the State of Florida. That was the 7-2 vote. It was pretty clear. You can't have every vote examined on its own basis and try to get what the voter wanted out of it. Even if the Florida Legislature had passed this law it would not have mattered. This is an Equal Protection issue. Clear as day. Two ballots cast by two voters marked exactly the same way could be interpretted differently by the Florida Supreme Courts order. That's just not legal. The 5-4 vote was whether or not the deadline set by hte Legislature was a valid deadline. The dissenting Justices ruled that the Legislature's biggest goal was to ensure every ballot was recounted manually and tabulated. However, 3 USC 7 sets the date that the electoral college meets. If a State has not selected its electors, it forfeits its votes. The US Supreme Court found, like the Florida Supreme Court, that the Florida Legislature has a bigger interest in ensuring that its votes as a state are recognized. This was the "5" part 5-4 decision. If Scalia had recused himself and the vote come down 4-4, the 7-2 vote would have stood - meaning the State of Florida would have had to impose the same standard across all counties. The Decemember 18th date set in 3 USC 7 would cleary (only 6 days from the date of the decision) be missed, and all Floridians would lose their vote. Since no candidate would have recieved 270 electoral votes, the US House would have voted, and Bush would have still one.
The bottom line is this: regarding the election politics, there is not a single ruling that the either the SCOTUS or the Florida Supreme Court could have provided that would have given Al Gore the White House. Not one. If you have the proposed text, or a description of what it was, please by all means be the first to provide it. There was no legal way that a "intent of the voter" standard could be enacted. It's not legal by Florida law, it's not legal by US law, it's not legal by the US Constitution. Even in the best case - if the US Supreme Court never intervened - Gore could not have won.
different (and biased) balloting systems in use in different counties
You someone how hold the Republicans responsible for having more up to date voting equipment. The fact is that the State of Florida does not fund county elections. It is up to the County to handle thier own elections. This is enshrined in State law as well as the State constitution. There are elected officals who are mandated to deal with it. The counties in question where run by Democrats. The only person to blame for these counties poor equipment are the elected Election Board Supervisors. There is no excuse for them keeping 30, 40, 50 year old crappy voting equipment in place. At very worst, they could easily print up a paper ballot on large paper with an empty box next the candidates name. They choose not to do that. And in doing so they ended u
Sure, but they'd be within their rights to fire you if you had TB and then you insisted on not having it treated and spreading it around.
Not necessarily true. They cant expose your co-workers to infectious disease of that nature, but they cant just terminate you because you refuse optional medical treatment.
They'd have to make reasonable accomodations for you - namely assigning you to work outside of contact if possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the problem is, that everyone uses the phrase P2P. Don't expect Congress to lead the way here.
Apparently the entire tech world thought that Congress and the dozens of IP industries were going to sit back and let a major industry, a major exporter, and a major cash-center be Napsterized into oblivion.
BitTorrent is a great technology that is harmed thanks to the Kazaa's, edonkey's, and new age Napster wanna be's.
And unless the tech world shapes up and realizes that Congress isn't going to stop until this type of rampant infringement is curbed the steps will become more and more and more drastic.
i) I have the right to download MP3's, however, I do NOT have the right to distribute them -- this is handy because most MP3's come from international sources via p
Right, but if you are in a small band like two friends of mine, and you buy blank CDs to distribute your music, you are forced to fund your competition by paying an unfair tax.
As far as your healthcare, I have news for you. If you think that people in the United States do not get healthcare if uninsured you are wrong. The system provides care to all. I've worked in hospitals, and all people are treated.
The difference under the US system is that where some people get just basic care - not much worse than their poor Canadian counterparts - some people get very, very, very good care. The best care you can get anywhere in the world. This type of care would not be available to anyone else anywhere. For example, a sister in-law of a co-worker had a most-complicted pregnancy. She went to extremely premature labor, was rushed to the hospital where she delivered and the newborn was amount the half-dozen earliest premature babies to ever survive. The mother was in intensive care for several months. Several rare techniques that are unavailable outside the US were employed. Specialists from all over came to her aid. All told, the incidents generated well over $2.5M in medical bills. She paid 20% of the first $1000, and the rest was covered. $200 of $2.5M.
Canada is a fine country. But do not decieve yourself. America is still the premiere democracy in the world. And it still is a bastion of nearly unparelled freedom despite scare tactics and the internet-echo chamber of naysayings and phantoms of liberties lost.
And regular lawsuits against multiple people trading files online, including 12yo girls and grandparents who didn't even know that their grandkids had installed the software have worked too. But yep, a law will do the trick, heaven knows people won't break a law but are happy to risk financial ruin.
And those grandparents, there possesions were taken and they were incarcerated, right?
Ohh, no? They just had to stop running the software? Horror of horror.
Fact. If you illegally share copyrighted materials online you are in the wrong.
I am just seething with anger at your tone and accusation.
You are acting like such a child. People knowingly break the law and do so without regard for the victims of their actions deserve serious consequences. You make it seem like Congress is deciding that anyone who gets a drink during commericals is going to jail.
Ohh right, because God knows that if teenagers aren't allowed to trade copyrighted materials online with impunity progress has been halted worldwide.
Face it. The p2p makers said "huh, we cant get around your pesky copyright laws all we want!". And now Congress is saying "go ahead, make our day" while holding a big stick.
Well, given that the USA PATRIOT act allows sneak and peek searches, I would say that the liberty to feel safe from searches in your own home... (That would be your rights under the Fourth Amendment)
The Fourth Amendment does not gurantee you the right to be free from searches. It guarantees you a right to be free from unreasonable searches. The changes in the Patriot Act say that if any of 5 conditions are true, notification can be delayed to the citizen that they were searched. The authorties must show the judge that if the person to be searched is given notice, one of the five things will happen - (1) an individual's physical safety will be endangered, (2) someone will flee prosecution, (3) evidence will be tampered with, (4) potential witnesses will be intimidated or, (5) an investigation would be jeopardized or a trial unduly delayed. The fourth amendment does not guarantee you a right to know we have been searched. The authorities are still required to obtain a warrant, still required to go in front a judge. You are still protected from unreasonable searches and siezures. Knock that off your list.
Then there is the Sixth amendment rights to a fair, speedy public trial. Given that people held since 9/11 have been held without trial as "material witnesses", that the patriot act allows people to be held without access to legal defence... I think that might be number two. (I would point out that the sixth amendment does not say "Citizen".)
The Supreme Court decided that you cannot be held without charges. Even the prisoners of foreign birth held overseas now have access to lawyers and will be formally charged. As far as being held a material witness, this is nothing new. It has been part of the law since 1984. Any person who is detained as a material witness has a right to demand a hearing before a federal judge and the right to counsel, appointed at government expense, if necessary. A federal judge must determine whether the person is, in fact, a material witness and whether he may be detained. Detainment is required only if there is a risk of flight or danger. Again, not liberties or freedom have been lost.
Hmmm, well, technically, Congress hasn't made many laws on this. However, the rights enumerated under this have definitely been violated.
Well that is a bad sign you have no legitimate issue on this, but lets go ahead just in case you are right.
We'll start with the "free speech" zones. So that the president doesn't have to see any opposition, people who want to "Peaceably asemble" are herded into little cages around the corner out of sight.
"Free speech" zones are nothing new. In most parts of the country you have to apply for a permit to organize a large scale protest. Permits can be denied for a number of reasons. This has been throughly worked through in the courts. The first amendment does not guarantee you access to the President, it does not guarantee you the right to riot or be disorderly. It guartantees you the right to peacefully assemble. It does not guarantee you access to private property to protest. It has never guaranteed you an audience.
The military have "banned" certain types of photographs from being shown to the public... that sounds to me like the freedom of the press being violated.
No, they haven't. That is blantly false. There are a number of laws on the books for decades regarding the release of satellite photots, classified information, and the like. However, once released, the press can print them willy-nilly. The press is not criminally on the hook, just the person who released them. If you have a specific case in mind, please, by all means, provide some links.
Voter registrations in Ohio are being ignored because they are printed on the wrong paper, and voters in Florida are being unregistered because they have a similar name to someone who committed a felony in a different state. Both of those sound like they are an impedimen
Now, if the fact that the government can detain a you for years without ever filing a charge in court or proving any cause for holding you doesn't disturb you, then I guess you have nothing to worry about.
The government made a mistake. The issue was resolved in the courts, and the government responded to the appropriate authority.
An individual was illegally detained; the detention was challeneged in court, the individual was released unharmed.
How can you claim this is a liberty lost? The liberty lost would be if the man was not released. If the administration said no, we are not releasing him. Or if the court had ruled it was okay to hold him.
Everything here worked. You are not allowed to be held without charge, even if you are suspected terrorist.
In fact, we all have more liberty now that the Supreme Court has made this ruling.
Chalk this one up in the "liberties gained" column.
None of these are new. I've got news for you. Your reading habits have always been subject to investigation by the government.
If you are a suspected criminal the authorities investigate you. They can question witnesses and subpoena private records regarding your activities. During the Clinton impeachment debacle, for example, Monica Lewinsky's purchases at Barnes and Noble were obtained via subpoena.
As far as #3, this is also not new. For example, the FBI can obtain a warrant to wiretap my phones or monitor my bank account and neither my phone company nor bank can disclose this information. Why? Because knowing I was investigation would prompt me to destroy possible evidence, clean up my act, intimitade possible witnesses, or even flee.
Very few institutions or individuals ever have the "right" to not divulge information that the authorities deem to be relevant when armed with a warrant. These include your clergy person in a petitent setting, your attorney in most circumstances, and your doctor in a few circumstances. Your librarian has never had this right.
Finally, about #1. Having your name on a watch list is not illegal, and its not a violation of your rights. The government has a duty to investigate those suspected of crimes. Period. The FBI or any other agency does not the right or ability to monitor, wholesale, the activity of patrons of any given library. What they do have, and what is a new power, is the ability to obtain via administrative warrant your library records. To obtain this warrant an offical must swear and oath that he/she has reasonable suspicion that you are a material actor in a criminal act or conspiracy.
Nothing you bring up is any liberty lost. Having your name on a watch list or investigation list is not a violation of your rights. Your library has never been immune from disclosing your records. And suppliers of subpoenaed information have never been able to warn-off the target of an investigation.
1) Freedom of Speech has been drastically weakened. Anybody speaking out against the president's foreign policy is deemed unpatriotic.
Being called "unpatriotic" is not the same having your free speech suppressed. It is being called unpatriotic. "I think you are unpatriotic". There. Are you being repressed?
2) Protection from Illegal Search and Seizure. Goodbye to any sort of due process for terrorist suspects. There are STILL people in jail suspected of being terrorists, held without any real proof or more importantly a court date.
2) Protection from Illegal Search and Seizure. Goodbye to any sort of due process for terrorist suspects. There are STILL people in jail suspected of being terrorists, held without any real proof or more importantly a court date.
Is that so? The Supreme Court has ruled on this, and dteremined that this wouldn't stand, correct? Everyone has the right to challenege their detention in court.
3) Right to a fair trial? Not sure what this falls under, but naming American citizens enemy combatants and denying them all legal rights has surely got to be a violation of more than just common sense.
This isn't new. If you are operating as a foreign agent you have never been afforded protection. Are we required to give criminal trials to soliders captured during war? No. Are we required to give trials to sabtourers and spies caught behind enemy lines, unmarked as soliders? No. Under the Geneva Convention these people are subject to summary execution.
FBI agents do not need a court order to tap any of your communications.
As far as I can tell, that is completely false.
Wiretaps of all kinds must be approved by a court. Even the most basic forms of approval come in the form of an "administrative hearing" which involve a judge/justice and a government rep, all on the record.
What specifically do you have to backup your assertion that the FBI requires no court orders to tap communications?
What liberties have been given up so far in the War on Terror?
Can you list three?
FYI.
I know you were trying to be ironic or sarcastic or whatever, but almost anyone can afford a used private aircraft. It's not much more expensive than a used car in many cases.
Laziness, that's all. But that doesnt mean its criminal negligence. That's a specific legal term with specific meanings.
I want to know what law is violated by publishing crappy software. Is that so hard to understand?
The poster implied that this was almost criminally negligent. I want to know if he just made that up for dramatic effect or not.
For example, the definition of "criminal negligence" is:
gross deviation from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person that is manifest in a failure to protect others from a risk (as of death) deriving from one's conduct and that renders one criminally liable called also culpable negligence
I am asking what standard of care is expected from MS? And what is the manifest risk here?
Get it? What type of loser are you. Can't take discussion is it possibly maybe in someway disrupt your preconceived notions?
Aww. Imagine that. I am asking someone to backup a legal claim. Some people are actually lawyers, you know.
Yes, it does. Let's say that an OSS project linked to this system dll. Let's say MS took the drastic step of fixing the DLL, and breaking binary compatibility, which would cause an error in the OSS app.
All the sudden you have choas.
Yeah, thats' great until it detects a possible flaw in a darling project of OSS, and then suddenely every news site including Slashdot writes about MS's "gravely threatening and disturbingly shrill monopoly practices".
I think MS is right here.
bordering on the criminally neglient concerning network security.
Please back up your assertion that this is "bordering" on criminally neglient.
Do you claim there are some laws regarding network security that are applicable, or this just a verbal flourish gone one step to far.
All you need is to be organised . . . .
Except there is an issue of scalability. Our elecorate is 20 times larger than yours. We have enough polling places that you'd be baffled. We also have a different ballot in every district.
Hand-counting ballots doesn't scale worth a damn. Imagine if you had to find 20-50 times the number of people to count your ballots. It's a non-trivial operation.
100% ? Maybe not, but certainly more that four nines. Your suggestion of a 99% accuracy rate from machines is a red herring.
The difference in votes in Florida was less than 600.
That means that you need at least 99.99% accuracy or better to be within that margin of error.
Many countries have a system that works well with hand-marked ballots double-counted, etc. However, that is not practical when we are talking about 100 million votes. It's simply not. It scales well to a degree, but not to a 100 million votes.
Other states in the US have been even closer. A 100 vote margin is not unheard of in a state with 10 million votes. That means you need 99.999 accuracy or better to be within the margin.
You have to face it. When the number of votes gets within a small delta, you have a virtual tie. The will of the voters is impossible to project with 100% confidence. Can we really put someone into office with less than 100% confidence that the majority of people wanted that person in power? I say no.
What we need to do is have sometype of run-off, re-vote, re-do what have you until a definitive margin is reached.
Let's see:
104,338,854 votes recorded.
If we are using equipment that averages 98% combined adjusted accuracy (undervotes, overvotes, missed votes, mutliple votes, malfunctions, etc) than it means that there is a legitimate range of 2,086,777 of votes that between an exact tie and a stastical tie.
The margin was in fact 543,895 votes. Even if the accuracy was 99% - some counties do have machines with that level of accuracy - the vote range would have to exceed 1,043,388 to be certain.
In Florida, the margin was so much closer than the margin in the entire country that it is impossible, and remain impossible, to determine what the true will of the voters was with 100% confidence.
The fact is that there is no voting technology currently used anywhere that can collect 6 million votes in one 12-hour day and tabulate them with a 100% accuracy rate.
If this country was a direct democracy Gore would have won, but he would have suffered the same pall of illegimaticy that Bush suffers from. Why?
Because you cannot in good science and conscience declare that the will of the people was for Gore or Bush to be President in 2000. The equipment does not support that conclusion. There were many other states that were almost as close as Florida.
Regardless of the form of election - our current system or a direct democracy, you cannot register a valid election when the number of votes between the two top candidates is below the margin of error for the equipment in use.
Time to grow up and face it.
I'm just saying -- our country SUCKS
Interesting.
Corporations have rights that citizens do not
That's not true.
if I write a program that takes over your computer and spies on you -- I'm a hacker/terrorist
If it takes over your computer against the will of the user, than you are a "hacker" (well, that's not a real world, but still). If you did this with the intent of causing terror, you are a terrorist. If you did out of a sense of malicious intent, you are a criminal. Please show me three csaes were a "hacker" writing a virus/trojan was called a "terrorist" by a government offical.
A company does it -- its legit (spyware/adware).
If a company does it - to show ads or collect personal information - they've bundled it with a software package/website/service. The provider of the software/service has made an arrangement for money. The user is a willing party. In cases were the user is not a willing party the FTC will investigate. It is decidedly not legit. Congress has 4 bills on its next-term docket to deal with the issue. Several bills came up during the current Congress but were drawn too widely and were sent back for refinement.
Have you seen on TV advertisements for drug companies now selling drugs whose purpose is to "Provide positive energy?"
No, I haven't. I couldn't find any single reference by any major drug maker that claims this. However, somethngs to note. If a drug maker makes a claim of efficacy, it must be backed up in clinical trials. Side-effects must be disclosed. If the research is faulty the drug-maker is liable for damages, and in past cases these have caused billions. Now, if the trug you are talking about is consider a "homeopathic" treament, it does not require certification by the FDA. This means the drug must be of certain chemical potency and must not contain certain ingredients. The company is still liable, but does not have to prove efficacy. You are by law able to sell these same exact drugs.
Yet if I want to do the same thing with marijuana I'm the criminal?
Yes, you are. That's the law. You can't sell marijuana. Why? Because first off, you smoke it. Second off, it has a negative effect on youth. Third off, it has a long-history of causing all kinds of performance and health issues, not the least of which is motor control and driving deficienes. Countries with legal or nearly-legal marijuana have myraid problems with it. Parts of Amsterdam, for example, are very dangerous not least of the reasons being the drug culture. Beyond that, you make seem like corportions are out selling pot but you can't. And we know that's false.
For the record, selling bootlegs is wrong
Profiting against someones will off their work is wrong, regardless of the venue.
And so is everything the RIAA does.
No, thats provably false. The RIAA is validated by the massess. The music industry sells millions of records and is rather profitable. Logically that means something they are doing is filling a marketable demand. The RIAA does not profit against someones will from their work. Everything they sell has been contracted for legally. I am not a big fan of the RIAA, but you claiming they steal or whatnot is garbage. Everything the RIAA does you can legally do on your own just fine.
Sorry for the bile -- I've just had it with our country right now.
You haven't presented a single argument that makes any sense as to why.
For the record, this case is bad news. The situation is question is bound for an appeal that could rule in favor of more copyright. It is not a good sign when a court overrules law with a non-symapathetic plantiff. This issue has largely been decided in Ashcroft v. Eldred, and the appeals courts are unlikely to intervene for such an unworthy case.
Based on you've posted here, I am guessing you are a
Maine.
If they say just because he was no longer needed, then what does the prosecution say?
This is an easy one. If your job was filled by someone else, then you bust them. Lying on top of the original offense. The judge will not be impressed. If you were really fired for some illegal reason and not because they didnt need you anymore someone else will be brought in to do your old job.
Where would you find those witnesses? If they still work there, they are likely to be hostile to you not sink their ship.
For one thing, if there were multiple peopel witnessing an incident, someone will talk. If they are harassed after testifying they also have a good case. If people are reluctant to testify the judge can seal the court and they can be provided as a John/Jane Doe. An affadavit will often also suffice. Usually the defandants will stipulate to whatever people swear to without much of a fight. Also, if anyone has subsequently left the company to go someplace else they are a good candidate for a witness.
How many programers let go because they we getting ready to draw retirement ever won one of these cases.
Many, many, many. Most of these cases never even get to court. They just get settled out of court, usually with something like 1 year severance plus a few grand for damages. There are thousands of succesful employment practices cases every year.
Even if you win the company can wear you down by stalling/appealing for years.
This only really happens when an employee gets greedy. If you are an honest person who honestly was discriminated illegally against you wont be going for a 2 million dollar payout. You are going to be going for (a) your job back, (b) 12-18 months wages plus reasonable damages (50% of pay, maybe), (c) an apology. All of things are cheaper than even filing one appeal. Appeals are only really used in big-stakes cases - cases where attrition is the goal.
The ones with the largest bankroll have the advantage here. Very, very occasionally do you ever here of the little guy winning.
I disagree. I designed and implemented a tracking system used by a group of laywers to track issues like this as they go through the legal system. It's amazing. The only times you see the little guy losing is when:
1. They fabricate all/part of their story, and then change it later.
2. They pre-meditate a lawsuit. For example saying "I hope my boss doesnt sexually harass me, I've already made my wishes clear in writing by certified letter four times.". This is thing judges frown on. Taunting/flaunting the legal system into working for you.
3. The get too greedy. If you are fired from your job illegally it doesnt mean you should be made rich enough to retire. Asking $1M in damages is silly. Judges don't like that.
In my home state the success rate (winning in court, getting a settlement, or being offered the job back) was well over 50%, probably approaching 66% last I knew.
It was not an invention or imposition of the court! This assertation is simply not correct
It was an invention of the court. The court require a judgement on the intent of the voter. No matter the marking or the mis-marking, the court said it must be assigned. The law you quoted and I referenced says that a vote may not be discounted if the intent is clear. The court expanded the Legislature's rule drastically. The PDF I linked to has a whole section on the this "may" vs" shall" distinction. The Legislature says that no vote with a clear intent should be ignored. The Court says that every must be counted. Big, big difference.
There was no danger of that. The legislature had the power to select electors directly. This would have been legally valid, and put Bush into office legitimately, but politically it would have been disasterous for both the legislature and Bush.
The point being that either way, Bush would have won. If the electors had been selected by the Legislature every single vote would have been discounted. Both SCOTUS and Florida Supreme Court believed this to be a much larger problem than any alternative.
I find that hard to beleive, as five minutes with Google found these.
These are people on the list. The list that was largely ignored. What I am looking for is a person who went to a polling place, was told he/she was not allowed to vote due to this felon list (improperly added to the list).
It makes no difference whether the counties in question were run by Democrats; a condtion where one citizen's vote is 95% likely to be registered while another's is 99.9% likely is a serious problem.
It is a serious problem. It is a problem caused by bad county politics. Of course, you cant blame Bush for these problems, even though people routinely do.
Irrelevant. The incompetence of a state offical of the same party as a candidate you wish to vote for doesn't change your right to vote.
County offical. But you are right. It doesn't change. But again, people blame this misconduct on Bush.
I would have said I would have been about 75% as pissed off; I had a visceral dislike of Bush that accounted for about an extra 25% piss-off factor
Well then, you are in the good side the population bitching about Florida 2000.
Florida in 2000 was a tie. A tie. At some point in the future people are going to have recognize it was a tie. And deal with the fact that close elections that come in under the margin of error need some type of run-off.
What a bunch of hogwash.
The Florida Supreme Court followed Florida law that the "clear intent of the voter" must be followed
Read the opinion. I have. Here is the link. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the Secretary of State must accept vote counts from county Canvassing board after the deadline set by the Law. (See See 102.166(5), Fla. Stat. (2000)). It demands that the intent of the voter be determined. Bush challenged this, saying that the Florida Supreme Court was wrong to impose this. The Florida Supreme Court claimed in its ruling it was not making election law, however, this precedent was never established by the Legislature. Furthermore, the courts assertion that the Secretary of State must accept tallies after the date the Legislature deemed to be the deadline was clearly, obviously, without a doubt, new law. The Supreme Court ruled that the same standard must apply to all votes and voters in the State of Florida. That was the 7-2 vote. It was pretty clear. You can't have every vote examined on its own basis and try to get what the voter wanted out of it. Even if the Florida Legislature had passed this law it would not have mattered. This is an Equal Protection issue. Clear as day. Two ballots cast by two voters marked exactly the same way could be interpretted differently by the Florida Supreme Courts order. That's just not legal. The 5-4 vote was whether or not the deadline set by hte Legislature was a valid deadline. The dissenting Justices ruled that the Legislature's biggest goal was to ensure every ballot was recounted manually and tabulated. However, 3 USC 7 sets the date that the electoral college meets. If a State has not selected its electors, it forfeits its votes. The US Supreme Court found, like the Florida Supreme Court, that the Florida Legislature has a bigger interest in ensuring that its votes as a state are recognized. This was the "5" part 5-4 decision. If Scalia had recused himself and the vote come down 4-4, the 7-2 vote would have stood - meaning the State of Florida would have had to impose the same standard across all counties. The Decemember 18th date set in 3 USC 7 would cleary (only 6 days from the date of the decision) be missed, and all Floridians would lose their vote. Since no candidate would have recieved 270 electoral votes, the US House would have voted, and Bush would have still one.
The bottom line is this: regarding the election politics, there is not a single ruling that the either the SCOTUS or the Florida Supreme Court could have provided that would have given Al Gore the White House. Not one. If you have the proposed text, or a description of what it was, please by all means be the first to provide it. There was no legal way that a "intent of the voter" standard could be enacted. It's not legal by Florida law, it's not legal by US law, it's not legal by the US Constitution. Even in the best case - if the US Supreme Court never intervened - Gore could not have won.
different (and biased) balloting systems in use in different counties
You someone how hold the Republicans responsible for having more up to date voting equipment. The fact is that the State of Florida does not fund county elections. It is up to the County to handle thier own elections. This is enshrined in State law as well as the State constitution. There are elected officals who are mandated to deal with it. The counties in question where run by Democrats. The only person to blame for these counties poor equipment are the elected Election Board Supervisors. There is no excuse for them keeping 30, 40, 50 year old crappy voting equipment in place. At very worst, they could easily print up a paper ballot on large paper with an empty box next the candidates name. They choose not to do that. And in doing so they ended u
Sure, but they'd be within their rights to fire you if you had TB and then you insisted on not having it treated and spreading it around.
Not necessarily true. They cant expose your co-workers to infectious disease of that nature, but they cant just terminate you because you refuse optional medical treatment.
They'd have to make reasonable accomodations for you - namely assigning you to work outside of contact if possible.