$10k is peanuts if you have to live on it for, say, three months at a lifestyle of being gainfully employed in a high tech job, and fear access to funds in your bank will be prevented (admittedly, a bit paranoid).
Childs was doing his job: keeping the network safe from idiots.
About the only think he should be guilty of is taking his job seriously.
Never assign to malice what can be attributed to stupidity.
I would argue that the legal system was not designed to punish the lawful, but that it can be hacked to that purpose: the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Usenet carried posts and articles in newsgroups. Synchronization took place via abstracted mechanisms, most commonly uucp over serial modem links.
So, yes, Usenet preceded the Internet in the sense that it did not rely in IP, though both generally evolved around the same time.
But, there was a rather vibrant pre-WWW internet where the protocols of choice were smtp (mail), ftp (file transfer), and gopher and archie for repositories of places to find stuff. News could be carried via nntp (net news transfer protocol).
What some may not know was that sendmail could work over transiently connected points as well, rather like usenet. Anyone still remember bang path notation? One would address mail using the sequence of hosts required to get it from one's own to the destination, using names understood by each successive host in the sequence. One of the reasons sendmail configuration files were so horrendous was to permit relaying between networks using different host naming conventions.
I negotiated a plea bargain for disorderly conduct in order to close the case on a pending charge of felony assault. Not because I feared having to defend against what I was arrested for, but because the prosecution appeared to not formally charge me for lack of a strong enough case. (At my arraignment, I formally identified myself, expecting the prosecution to present their charges, and the attorney left!) The case could have been left open for up to five years, and I'm in circumstances where an open case was far worse than a disorderly conduct conviction.
The problem here is that, after an arrest and finding of probable cause, the prosecution can take an inordinate amount of time to actually charge you. Sure, you can post bail, and be free, but the accusation can hang over your head for years before trial, if charges are ever pressed. Because they can be pressed on short notice, your circumstances are very much in limbo.
Far better would be if the accused could force the issue of trial without having to sit in jail: if incarcerated, one has a right to a speedy trial -- within 60 days in WA. But, if one posts bail, trial has to take place within 90 days of formal charges being laid. and those can be "sat on" for years (as defined by the state's statute of limitations, if any). Further, the court can order release one one not formally charged, and the same "sitting on" can occur.
Of course, the prosecution gets "one shot" to press formal charges, because of the prohibition against double jeopardy, so if they think their case is weak, they can sit on it. I say that is wrong.
From a finding of probable cause to a trial on the evidence should be a swift process. This would prevent arrests on the flimsiest evidence. After all, there is nothing stopping law enforcement to get necessary warrants to gather the evidence they need over a period of time.
Kids have two parents that influence them. The incompetence of one should not reflect upon the failure of the other.
My personal mistake was yielding custody to my ex in our divorce because I had not substantial evidence that she would be a "bad parent", only a gut feeling and any arguments would be speculative.
When the management chain tells you to "protect the network at all costs" and "give me access despite my demonstrating incompetence", you can't obey both orders at the same time.
This case hinged on whether Childs' boss was an "authorized user", and it took the jury some time to decide he was, only because he was recognized as authorized to do something else. Further, their decision was swayed by his suspicious behavior to lead them to conclude because his behavior was suspicions he must have known he was in the wrong.
So, the question was basically, "Did Childs' know his boss was an authorized user?" And the answer was "Yes, because he let him do somethings in the past and then acted all wierd".
Sorry, I don't buy that line of reasoning.
Crap, if I ask you repeatedly if I can borrow $10, and after a period of doing so and paying you back, you say, "Look, I keep a bit of cash in my desk. If you need to borrow a bit, feel free and leave an IOU," I don't think that would entitle me to "borrow" $100 some day if I found it there. $15, even $20, maybe, but not $100 (and even $50 would be a stretch).
IF the degree of access previously granted was commensurate with the new access desired insofar as, if abused, it could cause similar harm, then, yes, I would accept the verdict. But, not on the basis of what Juror #4 reports alone.
...there was never a system to which I had root access to which my boss was not also entitled to have root, and in fact had it. It was from my boss that both my authority to have root and the root password itself flowed.
And this was precisely what was not clear in this case. In fact, because there was no legal definition of "authorized user", AND he had a responsibility to protect the network as part of his job, AND that his boss was incompetent, the jury deliberated at length. If his boss were competent, a reasonable person might find that he was an authorized user since his use would not conflict with Child's responsibility to protect the network, but this was not the case.
It was not clear that his boss was an "authorized user", and, if he was, "to what"? The jury finally decided he was authorized by Child's own actions in providing him some access, but again, to what?. I submit that "not to the network at large".
So yes, in part he was railroaded, but at the end of the day he took, with full knowledge, actions that would reasonably be expected to result in at least termination and probably prosecution. In this case, it resulted in both, and he could have avoided all of this by turning over the passwords to his boss, a person authorized to know them by any reasonable definition thereof.
Well, yes, but the irony of that would be that if he did what his boss told him, he would most certainly be in a position to be fired because he would be derelict in his duty to protect the network. It might have gone better if he turned over access, and if things went south and he was fired because of it, he might have a cause of action. However, doing so could put many people in the city at risk if the network failed. If your boss threatens to fire you for not enabling him to kill someone out of his own incompetence, what do you do? If I have a permit to own and possess a firearm, and an employer that allows carry on premises (admittedly a contrived situation), and my boss asks me for it, and he does not have a permit, what do I do?
The problem here was that his boss was not explicitly authorized to have that kind of access.
Further, I expect if he did turn over access and something bad happened, he could be prosecuted for criminal negligence because he knew it was not safe.
I think he should appeal this verdict, on the basis of the jury not understanding their instructions.
The problem here was he was doing his job, which was ill-defined, and "following orders" could not only cause him to be responsible for harm over which he had no control (and get him fired for a bogus reason), it could have serious repercussions for others.
If all that is on the line if I let my boss do something stupid and bad things happen, and not letting him do it will ensure my firing, I will let him do it, and try to cover my ass as much as possible (and consider employment elsewhere). But, if "giving in" means that bad things that could hurt a lot of people might happen, I will consult with my attorney before proceeding. If anything, that was Childs' mistake.
I think there is "reasonable doubt" in Juror #4's mind, and a bit of confusion.
He concludes that because Childs provided some access information to a particular person, that made that person an "authorized user", and his subsequent refusal to provide more information evidence of his guilt in not providing access to an authorized user.
But, the question becomes, authorized to do what?
I have root access on a number of machines where I work, on a "need to have" basis. I certainly do not have root access to every machine. Neither do I want it, as a matter of potential liability if something goes wrong.
I think Juror #4 missed this point, based on TFA.
As to Child's odd behavior, I'd attribute it more to paranoia than malice: if I though I was getting fired for doing my job, and feared my bank accounts might be frozen (paranoia), I'd likely want to be a bit flush with cash too.
I maintain that his behavior is subject to "reasonable doubt" as to intent. If he acted in a manner to render difficult or impossible his providing of access credentials regardless of demonstration of authorization, I'd side with the prosecution. But, instead, he DID provide such credentials to someone he viewed as authorized who then had the means to provide them to others.
If this were a civil dispute, this "preponderance of the evidence" would be enough to result in a decision against him. but I don't think it meets the "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement.
He was railroaded because he exposed incompetence.
The six year old receives public school instruction about inappropriate touching and who to call if it happens (generally, 911, which leads to CPS).
The smart six year old threatens his parents with such a call and claim if they DON'T do as he asks.
Add over-zealous persecution to make quotas, and you find that many parents live in fear of their children. In many cases, the mere accusation is enough to destroy a career, and defending against even an "obviously" baseless charge is very expensive: at the very least bail for accused child molestors is generally set very high.
Are you going to wager your liberty and everything you own that the CPS worker assigned to investigate you is reasonable?
Remember, if a worker makes a mistake, and a "bad thing" happens, they get crucified. But, they generally have immunity from prosecution, if they err zealously on the side of caution.
Not having to provide "papers" is inconsistent with harsh laws against "illegals".
Of course, harsh laws requiring "papers" are inconsistent with difficulties for citizens to obtain and provide them -- and then there is the whole privacy and innocent until proven guilty thing.
As a foreigner it is (a) easy for me to comply, and (b) not really my place to criticize laws enacted by the elected representatives of citizens: if I didn't like things, I wouldn't come here.
So, you have a situation where a foreigner is required to provide "papers" (not unreasonable), and a citizen not (also not unreasonable), leading to not being able to enforce laws against those here unlawfully: all one has to do is lie. The best you can do in that situation is have harsh laws against lying about one's status in the U.S. And, those laws are already in place: lying to an INS official is a felony, IIRC. (Before I became a lawful permanent resident, I feared being asked "Are you a resident?" It would be a serious crime for me to tell an INS official "Yes", and an IRS official "No", because physical residency (what the INS cares about) is distinct from tax residency (which is what the IRS cares about).) However, lobbyist groups have also succeeded in getting laws enacted where it is illegal for some to ask about one's status.
So, it's a mess.
As a legal immigrant, I support harsh laws and punishments against those here illegally -- they give the likes of me a bad reputation by association.
However, I also understand the privacy issues of having to produce "papers" (which. as a foreigner, I'm willing to relinquish to a degree to be able to immigrate), and the technical difficulties for citizens to be able to do so.
I've often thought that an identity card that bound biometrics to a certification of legal status would serve the goals of status (the person with this thumb print is legal) as well as privacy (binding thumb prints to more common uses of identity is hard without a database, and such a database generally exists for arrestees at the local level, convicted criminals, and immigrants, not law-abiding citizens (except for arrestees, and laws could provide for the expungement of such records if not found guilty of a crime). In fact, my "Green Card" has my picture, identity, AND a thumb print, which throws out privacy issues, but I've addressed that above, and don't think greater scrutiny for foreigners is unreasonable.
The bottom line is that a national (or state) identification system that binds immigration status to biometrics, without revealing a more common identity key could be designed that does not violate privacy rights, except to a very narrow degree.
That leaves the larger issue of what to do about "fuckups": say when a card is lost, or the status is in a remote database indexed by biometric data (like a thumb print), and mistakes are made. But, that falls into the same bucket of the gray area between arrest and guilt, into the realm of "reasonable suspicion and "probable cause". Such a system should permit remote identification of individual's status within a short holding time (say an hour), and should this prove not possible, individuals have to be released. In fact, upon verified address and clean criminal record (which would require greater identity disclosure), one should be released on one's own recognizance and a date set to prove status. That's a matter for the statute. It is reasonable to be suspicious of an individual "without papers", but to hold them except briefly requires an effort to determine what their status actually is, and the burden to do so should be on the state.
Things like this can be done right, and fairly, if thought out a bit, and time allowed for the infrastructure to be put in place to make them effective.
If the importer imported it, he/she purchased it (or obtained it on consignment, which is probably unlikely), and can do with it what they wish.
As far as controlling a use of a thing, that would be a matter for a license, not a copyright.
I do recall a case in Canada, though, where an importer of toy cars obtained them legitimately, but was barred from selling them and competing with an "official" agent, on the basis of the copyright on the packaging, but I think that was a different case: while the toy was legit, the license to print packaging outside of Canada was not.
Makeup can make a character appear VERY DIFFERENT from the actor or actress that portrays him or her.
This is not the case with Nimoy and Spock (ears notwithstanding), but IS the case with Quinto and Spock, because Quinto "has to" look like Nimoy's portrayal of Spock.
Conversely, Pine looks very little like Shatner's portrayal of Kirk (at least to me): he does not look like Shatner very much at all.
Of course, both Quinto and Pine do an excellent job of capturing their respective character's personality and mannerisms.
Hmm. Them's some strong accusations on a public forum. Can you back them up, or elaborate on why that is your opinion?
On liar: it's pretty hard to tell when one is lying in a public forum, except, for inconsistencies in what they post. All I can say, is that I am telling the truth as best I know it -- even things that are not exactly flattering to me to set the context as straight as I can, without including too much irrelevant stuff.
On "issues": No, not really, just a battle for the best interests of our kids. I've even offered to continue to pay child support to their mother for a while if I gain custody, so she is not left destitute and therefore unavailable to the,
That leaves idiot.
Why come to that conclusion?
I can think of several reasons:
1. I do things which, while appropriate, can get me into trouble, instead of doing things that, while technically illegal, might go unnoticed, and keep me "safe". For example, noticing that my son had shoes so worn they were falling appart when his mother provided him to me so I could geed him, I could return him in that state. Except, while in my care, I an responsible for his welfare, have the means to purchase proper shoes, and he is at risk of tripping over his existing ones and getting hurt. To not purchase shoes for him would be clear neglect -- arguing over who should pay for them is irrelevant to his need for shoes. I'd think that's a reflection on bad laws.
Raising issues covered in '70s TV dramas? In case you haven't noticed, it isn't the 1970s.
So, how, exactly am I an idiot, then?
By not "towing the state line and just shutting up, paying child support, but not actually providing for my kids' welfare, and hoping no one notices?" That just proves my proint, that the state does not permit parents to parent.
Sorry, if I have to chose between what is safer for my kids, and what is legal, I will chose safety.
One can see the resemblance between Spock and Nimoy. However, Quinto needs a lot more makeup to play the role... because he has to look like the "original" Spock, who looked, pretty much, like Nimoy.
It's a case of the actor not so much portraying the character, but rather his predecessor's portrayal of the character.
1) Well, no. I had a very strong case to defend. No formal charges were ever laid, but the arrest was for felony assault 3 of a minor. An element of the crime was "considerable pain for substantial time", and this was missing. The more proper charge would have been assault 4 of a minor which is a "catch all", that includes leaving a mark on a child under 13 (he is 9). A defense is to prevent the child from hurting himself or others. Our son has been diagnosed with PDD/NOS and has been hospitalized for observation because he was deemed "a danger to himself and others", and he has a propensity to run when he does not get his way, hence, my actions to restrain him, This is also why psychologists and psychiatrists are involved with us. The current consensus is that he is NOT PDD/NOS, but rather that he has behavioral issues due to his mother not establishing ANY boundaries.
Now, I have been seeking custody of our kids, and the standard is their "best interest". So, yes, psychological evaluations are the norm, particularly if the family already has involved such people for their kids.
Therein lies the legal problem: I could not proceed unless the case against me was closed. The state was not proceeding with formal charges (which would mean a trial in 90 days or less), but they were not closing the case either. (I bailed myself out of jail.) The only way to close the case was to plead to "something" to make the prosecuting attorney happy. Disorderly conduct seamed like a nice catchall, and it fit the statutory definition: acting in such a manner as to make someone assault you (e.g. restraining a child in public). I pled guilty, was given a 90 day sentence, all 90 days suspended for two years, and a $1000 fine. This closes the case.
2. Oh there are plenty of issues. Mother is an unfit parent, and I am seeking custody.
3. Tangentially related: the State gives so much power to kids and wrests them from parents without due process (since taking your kids does not involve your liberty, it is handled in the civil courts). Once they have them, they can "treat" them, and guess who pays the bill? Criminal charges are another possibility, but unnecessary to ruin families and lives.
I know people who fear to discipline their kids in the mildest manner (groundings, withholding of privileges), because the kids pick up the phone, and threaten to call CPS with allegations of abuse.
So the state, by so empowering kids by claiming to "protect" them IS parenting them, because they've made real parenting a legally risky business fraught with the possibility of criminal charges and civil financial persecution.
Ideally, in my case, police (or the prosecuting attorney) would readily see that assault 3 was way out of line, and discovery would reveal that I'd have an affirmative defense against assault 4 to restrain our son because of his mental diagnosis and behavioral history. Might take a few days in jail to sort it out (better safe than sorry), but in a reasonable world, the case would likely be dropped without charges laid.
But, in this world, the prosecuting attorney will either pursue the case, or just as bad, sit on it, leaving a cloud of uncertainty over one's head. The statute of limitations here is five years.
Interestingly, that same affirmative defense would NOT have worked against a disorderly conduct charge, even though it would work against the more serious charge of assault 4.
So, yes, when parents call a kid's bluff, they can very easily find themselves in big legal trouble in this era of "protect the children" hysteria. The state very much IS parent.
Oh, and as to your claim that males abuse kids more than females, care to provide a cite? Evidence suggests the opposite is true: a child living in a fatherless home is more likely to suffer domestic violence.
Last time I checked 3 includes 2. I added one more. So, sue me.
We divorced two and a half years ago. Since, she's gone a little (well, a lot) loco. I did not have a kid with a crazy bitch. I had a kid (two actually) with a woman who started to go nuts after the second of the two we agreed to have was born.
Finally, I am seeking custody of both kids now that she is running afoul of truancy laws, has assaulted our daughter, and other general neglect and abuse. Unfortunately, opinions of mental health professionals carry weight and I disagree when "popular" choice is less safe than "unpopular" choice.
As to why didn't I seek custody during te divorce? Arguing who would be the "better" parent (without the day to day "living with" influence of the other) would have been speculative, and where we divorced, if only one spouse works, they pay BOTH attorneys -- that was money that could serve our kids' needs better than those of attorneys. So, I gave her a chance. She blew it. Of coursed, "fixing things" is now much harder than had I chosen to fight for custody in the first place, but hindsight is always 20/20.
One by one, the kids are literally running away from her and seeking shelter with me.
Parents are not ALLOWED to parent their children in America. That's the State's job. (Somewhere, Mussolini is laughing.)
Two anecdotal incidents:
1. My son is wont to run off without looking or thinking if he does not get what he wants (Mom tends to give in to irrational desires, me: far less so). I stopped him from trying to run into highway traffic while he was having one of his fits because he did not want shoes. Later, his mother called police because there was a small abrasion on his stomach. (I held him around the abdomen.) I was arrested, jailed for felony assault of a minor, and eventually pled guilty to disorderly conduct -- not because I was fearful of facing the charge -- but because it was necessary that the case be closed so I could continue to parent my kids: the State had to give me a trial within 90 days of pressing charges, but they could sit on those charges for five years, keeping the case open. Besides, disorderly conduct in WA essentially is anything that might make someone assault you -- perhaps someone might think I was trying to kidnap him.
2. My daughter wanted to meet a much older person she was chatting with online. I though it a perfect chance to teach how to meet strangers, that might become friends, even as I was wary. I set ground rules: I come along, we meet in a very public restaurant for lunch, we go our separate ways, we do not disclose where we live, we make sure we are not followed after. I was wary about this person's intentions but figured a blanket veto would just encourage a secret meeting which could be far more dangerous. I drilled her on "stranger safety" before the meeting and debriefed her after. This was deemed by a mental health professional as a "poor choice" and that the veto would be better.
3. A friend of my daughters recounted how some female classmates wanted her to be "in" on their plan. They were upset at how much homework a male teach was assigning and were to accuse, en masse, that he sexually abused them, figuring their numbers would bolster the believability of the allegation.
The bottom line is that effective parenting can get one jailed these days. And, I know many parents who outright fear their kids.
Er, what's the difference between inspecting the whole packet once and inspecting each layer of it once? kernel/user and process context-switching overhead? I guess, but the layer isolation reduces inter-layer bug interactions, and the overhead can be overcome with "more horsepower".
You get fast and unstable or slower and more reliable. Take your pick.
The upside to UTM is that "one appliance does it all". The downside, of course, is that "one appliance does it all", and therefore runs out of horsepower quickly if doing a lot.
You can either use a heterogenous solution, or a clustered homogenous one: the latter less efficient than the former (since, though you can tune individual elements= to focus on particular layers and protocols, you still are looking at everything on each node. However, the benefits of clustering are physical homogeneity: you don't have a separate firewall, anti-spam, anti-virus, etc. device.
For home/SOHO use, the UTM approach is likely the best one in terms of simplicity, price, and adequate performance.
Disclaimer: I work for a manufacturer of such devices.
The better ones integrate with Active Directory and/or Kerberos to authenticate sessions, and do spam and virus scanning (using a quarantine server, if available).
Some will even decrypt and reencrypt HTTPS traffic to check what's in it. (They resign the server's cert with their own CA cert that the user's browser has to trust -- in some environments, an intermediate CA cert can be imported signed by a CA cert that has already been pushed to the desktops.)
Some will even set up VPNs via a PC-based admin app in a step as simply as drag and drop.
That said, they don't come cheap: figure $500 and up for a home/SOHO office version (3 lan ports, DMZ, and one or two WAN ports (for WAN failover), along with licensing for virus and SPAM scoring server access.
I remember well an analysis of algorithms course I took around 1981. I also took the advanced graduate version of that course, from the same professor, in 1982.
In the undergraduate course, much of the the work dealt with sequences, series, mathematical proofs, and, yes, analyzing algorithms in "big-O" notation (which required competence in the former).
We were told up front that half the class would either drop out or fail. The professor would not accept assignments handed in late (even five minutes), and assign an automatic zero. We could collaborate on homework, but, if (say) three of us collaborated (and secret collaboration was likely to be detected given the nature of the assignments), we were expected to provide three novel proofs, implementations, etc.
The course text was Donald Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming". As I recall, much of the coursework for the undergraduate course was drawn from "Fundamental Algorithms" and "Seminumerical Algorithms" and the graduate course from "Sorting And Searching" (volumes 1 and 2, and 3, respectively), though there was some overlap.
All this was disclosed early enough in the semester for students to reconsider another course.
This particular professor was taken to making intentional errors in presenting the material, and berate students who did not catch them and speak up. Of course, pointing out an error that wasn't would be worse. Assignments in the graduate equivalent of this course always contained an unsolved problem in the field.
We learned to study and analyze algorithms as if our very lives depended on it.
This was not a required course for the Honours program. (Canadian Universities of the time typically had several specializations for undergraduate degree programs, and "Honours" was a particularly inclusive and difficult specialization among all the others -- basically, "all the other work and then some". One was also required to maintain an 80 or better course average over three years: the equivalent of being able to graduate "with honors" in other programs, either magna cum laude or summa cum laude. So to graduate "in Honours" meant you automatically graduated with honors.)
But, a handful of us were real masochists for which a 4.0 GPA alone was not enough to distinguish ourselves. (Crap, you could get that in the much maligned "business" major.)
I submit one does not see this "love of the art" anymore.
My thinking was regarding the providing of harmful substances directly to children without the oversight of a parent or guardian.
Society generally defines things as helpful, benign, or harmful, in various contexts.
The presumption is that nothing be provided to children without the approval of a parent or guardian unless it can be shown that it would be immediately harmful not to. For example, clearly one feeds a child healthy food if their parent starves them.
That stops others from offering a child anything deemed harmful, even doing so in moderation may have an educational benefit -- the short term harm being outweighed by the long term benefit is something I don't want the state to have -- only those with authority over the child. That takes care of moderate amounts of arguably harmful substances in an educational context.
However, now the burden shifts on the parent or guardian to demonstrate the help outweighs the harm, and a body of case law and evidence can back this up: clearly there is no reason to intoxicate a child, for example, even if giving a shot glass worth of beer to a 9 year old with a heavy meal is a decent introduction to alcohol. The body produces alcohol all on its own, and has alcohol dehydrogenase to metabolize it -- if the quantities involved are comparable to what the body could conceivably produce on its own within the limits of what it can metabolize quickly, that is a good defense.
Contrast teenager who has developed a taste for alcohol. Perhaps a good hangover might be in store to teach him or her a lesson. But, at this point there is just cause to seek professional medical and possibly mental health advice, to help comping to the conclusion that this would be a good idea.
Generally, the greater the risk, the more the burden falls on proving it is warranted, particularly when acting in the manner of a guardian.
I can't however, see any benefit to introducing a child to things like cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
(Now I remember why I got a lowly B+ in statistics.)
Childs was doing his job: keeping the network safe from idiots.
About the only think he should be guilty of is taking his job seriously.
For that kind of (small) difference to be statistically significant, I'd thing rather large sample sizes would be required.
Never assign to malice what can be attributed to stupidity.
I would argue that the legal system was not designed to punish the lawful, but that it can be hacked to that purpose: the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
So, yes, Usenet preceded the Internet in the sense that it did not rely in IP, though both generally evolved around the same time.
But, there was a rather vibrant pre-WWW internet where the protocols of choice were smtp (mail), ftp (file transfer), and gopher and archie for repositories of places to find stuff. News could be carried via nntp (net news transfer protocol).
What some may not know was that sendmail could work over transiently connected points as well, rather like usenet. Anyone still remember bang path notation? One would address mail using the sequence of hosts required to get it from one's own to the destination, using names understood by each successive host in the sequence. One of the reasons sendmail configuration files were so horrendous was to permit relaying between networks using different host naming conventions.
I negotiated a plea bargain for disorderly conduct in order to close the case on a pending charge of felony assault. Not because I feared having to defend against what I was arrested for, but because the prosecution appeared to not formally charge me for lack of a strong enough case. (At my arraignment, I formally identified myself, expecting the prosecution to present their charges, and the attorney left!) The case could have been left open for up to five years, and I'm in circumstances where an open case was far worse than a disorderly conduct conviction.
The problem here is that, after an arrest and finding of probable cause, the prosecution can take an inordinate amount of time to actually charge you. Sure, you can post bail, and be free, but the accusation can hang over your head for years before trial, if charges are ever pressed. Because they can be pressed on short notice, your circumstances are very much in limbo.
Far better would be if the accused could force the issue of trial without having to sit in jail: if incarcerated, one has a right to a speedy trial -- within 60 days in WA. But, if one posts bail, trial has to take place within 90 days of formal charges being laid. and those can be "sat on" for years (as defined by the state's statute of limitations, if any). Further, the court can order release one one not formally charged, and the same "sitting on" can occur.
Of course, the prosecution gets "one shot" to press formal charges, because of the prohibition against double jeopardy, so if they think their case is weak, they can sit on it. I say that is wrong.
From a finding of probable cause to a trial on the evidence should be a swift process. This would prevent arrests on the flimsiest evidence. After all, there is nothing stopping law enforcement to get necessary warrants to gather the evidence they need over a period of time.
My personal mistake was yielding custody to my ex in our divorce because I had not substantial evidence that she would be a "bad parent", only a gut feeling and any arguments would be speculative.
Unfortunately, hindsight is 20/20.
This case hinged on whether Childs' boss was an "authorized user", and it took the jury some time to decide he was, only because he was recognized as authorized to do something else. Further, their decision was swayed by his suspicious behavior to lead them to conclude because his behavior was suspicions he must have known he was in the wrong.
So, the question was basically, "Did Childs' know his boss was an authorized user?" And the answer was "Yes, because he let him do somethings in the past and then acted all wierd".
Sorry, I don't buy that line of reasoning.
Crap, if I ask you repeatedly if I can borrow $10, and after a period of doing so and paying you back, you say, "Look, I keep a bit of cash in my desk. If you need to borrow a bit, feel free and leave an IOU," I don't think that would entitle me to "borrow" $100 some day if I found it there. $15, even $20, maybe, but not $100 (and even $50 would be a stretch).
IF the degree of access previously granted was commensurate with the new access desired insofar as, if abused, it could cause similar harm, then, yes, I would accept the verdict. But, not on the basis of what Juror #4 reports alone.
And this was precisely what was not clear in this case. In fact, because there was no legal definition of "authorized user", AND he had a responsibility to protect the network as part of his job, AND that his boss was incompetent, the jury deliberated at length. If his boss were competent, a reasonable person might find that he was an authorized user since his use would not conflict with Child's responsibility to protect the network, but this was not the case.
It was not clear that his boss was an "authorized user", and, if he was, "to what"? The jury finally decided he was authorized by Child's own actions in providing him some access, but again, to what?. I submit that "not to the network at large".
So yes, in part he was railroaded, but at the end of the day he took, with full knowledge, actions that would reasonably be expected to result in at least termination and probably prosecution. In this case, it resulted in both, and he could have avoided all of this by turning over the passwords to his boss, a person authorized to know them by any reasonable definition thereof.
Well, yes, but the irony of that would be that if he did what his boss told him, he would most certainly be in a position to be fired because he would be derelict in his duty to protect the network. It might have gone better if he turned over access, and if things went south and he was fired because of it, he might have a cause of action. However, doing so could put many people in the city at risk if the network failed. If your boss threatens to fire you for not enabling him to kill someone out of his own incompetence, what do you do? If I have a permit to own and possess a firearm, and an employer that allows carry on premises (admittedly a contrived situation), and my boss asks me for it, and he does not have a permit, what do I do?
The problem here was that his boss was not explicitly authorized to have that kind of access.
Further, I expect if he did turn over access and something bad happened, he could be prosecuted for criminal negligence because he knew it was not safe.
I think he should appeal this verdict, on the basis of the jury not understanding their instructions.
The problem here was he was doing his job, which was ill-defined, and "following orders" could not only cause him to be responsible for harm over which he had no control (and get him fired for a bogus reason), it could have serious repercussions for others.
If all that is on the line if I let my boss do something stupid and bad things happen, and not letting him do it will ensure my firing, I will let him do it, and try to cover my ass as much as possible (and consider employment elsewhere). But, if "giving in" means that bad things that could hurt a lot of people might happen, I will consult with my attorney before proceeding. If anything, that was Childs' mistake.
He concludes that because Childs provided some access information to a particular person, that made that person an "authorized user", and his subsequent refusal to provide more information evidence of his guilt in not providing access to an authorized user.
But, the question becomes, authorized to do what?
I have root access on a number of machines where I work, on a "need to have" basis. I certainly do not have root access to every machine. Neither do I want it, as a matter of potential liability if something goes wrong.
I think Juror #4 missed this point, based on TFA.
As to Child's odd behavior, I'd attribute it more to paranoia than malice: if I though I was getting fired for doing my job, and feared my bank accounts might be frozen (paranoia), I'd likely want to be a bit flush with cash too.
I maintain that his behavior is subject to "reasonable doubt" as to intent. If he acted in a manner to render difficult or impossible his providing of access credentials regardless of demonstration of authorization, I'd side with the prosecution. But, instead, he DID provide such credentials to someone he viewed as authorized who then had the means to provide them to others.
If this were a civil dispute, this "preponderance of the evidence" would be enough to result in a decision against him. but I don't think it meets the "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement.
He was railroaded because he exposed incompetence.
The six year old receives public school instruction about inappropriate touching and who to call if it happens (generally, 911, which leads to CPS).
The smart six year old threatens his parents with such a call and claim if they DON'T do as he asks.
Add over-zealous persecution to make quotas, and you find that many parents live in fear of their children. In many cases, the mere accusation is enough to destroy a career, and defending against even an "obviously" baseless charge is very expensive: at the very least bail for accused child molestors is generally set very high.
Are you going to wager your liberty and everything you own that the CPS worker assigned to investigate you is reasonable?
Remember, if a worker makes a mistake, and a "bad thing" happens, they get crucified. But, they generally have immunity from prosecution, if they err zealously on the side of caution.
I used to make that mistake alot. :-)
Of course, harsh laws requiring "papers" are inconsistent with difficulties for citizens to obtain and provide them -- and then there is the whole privacy and innocent until proven guilty thing.
As a foreigner it is (a) easy for me to comply, and (b) not really my place to criticize laws enacted by the elected representatives of citizens: if I didn't like things, I wouldn't come here.
So, you have a situation where a foreigner is required to provide "papers" (not unreasonable), and a citizen not (also not unreasonable), leading to not being able to enforce laws against those here unlawfully: all one has to do is lie. The best you can do in that situation is have harsh laws against lying about one's status in the U.S. And, those laws are already in place: lying to an INS official is a felony, IIRC. (Before I became a lawful permanent resident, I feared being asked "Are you a resident?" It would be a serious crime for me to tell an INS official "Yes", and an IRS official "No", because physical residency (what the INS cares about) is distinct from tax residency (which is what the IRS cares about).) However, lobbyist groups have also succeeded in getting laws enacted where it is illegal for some to ask about one's status.
So, it's a mess.
As a legal immigrant, I support harsh laws and punishments against those here illegally -- they give the likes of me a bad reputation by association.
However, I also understand the privacy issues of having to produce "papers" (which. as a foreigner, I'm willing to relinquish to a degree to be able to immigrate), and the technical difficulties for citizens to be able to do so.
I've often thought that an identity card that bound biometrics to a certification of legal status would serve the goals of status (the person with this thumb print is legal) as well as privacy (binding thumb prints to more common uses of identity is hard without a database, and such a database generally exists for arrestees at the local level, convicted criminals, and immigrants, not law-abiding citizens (except for arrestees, and laws could provide for the expungement of such records if not found guilty of a crime). In fact, my "Green Card" has my picture, identity, AND a thumb print, which throws out privacy issues, but I've addressed that above, and don't think greater scrutiny for foreigners is unreasonable.
The bottom line is that a national (or state) identification system that binds immigration status to biometrics, without revealing a more common identity key could be designed that does not violate privacy rights, except to a very narrow degree.
That leaves the larger issue of what to do about "fuckups": say when a card is lost, or the status is in a remote database indexed by biometric data (like a thumb print), and mistakes are made. But, that falls into the same bucket of the gray area between arrest and guilt, into the realm of "reasonable suspicion and "probable cause". Such a system should permit remote identification of individual's status within a short holding time (say an hour), and should this prove not possible, individuals have to be released. In fact, upon verified address and clean criminal record (which would require greater identity disclosure), one should be released on one's own recognizance and a date set to prove status. That's a matter for the statute. It is reasonable to be suspicious of an individual "without papers", but to hold them except briefly requires an effort to determine what their status actually is, and the burden to do so should be on the state.
Things like this can be done right, and fairly, if thought out a bit, and time allowed for the infrastructure to be put in place to make them effective.
I went through the TN-1, H1-B, GC process, and always had proof of status on my person. I still do.
Or am I missing something?
If the importer imported it, he/she purchased it (or obtained it on consignment, which is probably unlikely), and can do with it what they wish.
As far as controlling a use of a thing, that would be a matter for a license, not a copyright.
I do recall a case in Canada, though, where an importer of toy cars obtained them legitimately, but was barred from selling them and competing with an "official" agent, on the basis of the copyright on the packaging, but I think that was a different case: while the toy was legit, the license to print packaging outside of Canada was not.
You miss my point, methinks.
Makeup can make a character appear VERY DIFFERENT from the actor or actress that portrays him or her.
This is not the case with Nimoy and Spock (ears notwithstanding), but IS the case with Quinto and Spock, because Quinto "has to" look like Nimoy's portrayal of Spock.
Conversely, Pine looks very little like Shatner's portrayal of Kirk (at least to me): he does not look like Shatner very much at all.
Of course, both Quinto and Pine do an excellent job of capturing their respective character's personality and mannerisms.
Hmm. Them's some strong accusations on a public forum. Can you back them up, or elaborate on why that is your opinion?
On liar: it's pretty hard to tell when one is lying in a public forum, except, for inconsistencies in what they post. All I can say, is that I am telling the truth as best I know it -- even things that are not exactly flattering to me to set the context as straight as I can, without including too much irrelevant stuff.
On "issues": No, not really, just a battle for the best interests of our kids. I've even offered to continue to pay child support to their mother for a while if I gain custody, so she is not left destitute and therefore unavailable to the,
That leaves idiot.
Why come to that conclusion?
I can think of several reasons:
1. I do things which, while appropriate, can get me into trouble, instead of doing things that, while technically illegal, might go unnoticed, and keep me "safe". For example, noticing that my son had shoes so worn they were falling appart when his mother provided him to me so I could geed him, I could return him in that state. Except, while in my care, I an responsible for his welfare, have the means to purchase proper shoes, and he is at risk of tripping over his existing ones and getting hurt. To not purchase shoes for him would be clear neglect -- arguing over who should pay for them is irrelevant to his need for shoes. I'd think that's a reflection on bad laws.
Raising issues covered in '70s TV dramas? In case you haven't noticed, it isn't the 1970s.
So, how, exactly am I an idiot, then?
By not "towing the state line and just shutting up, paying child support, but not actually providing for my kids' welfare, and hoping no one notices?" That just proves my proint, that the state does not permit parents to parent.
Sorry, if I have to chose between what is safer for my kids, and what is legal, I will chose safety.
One can see the resemblance between Spock and Nimoy. However, Quinto needs a lot more makeup to play the role... because he has to look like the "original" Spock, who looked, pretty much, like Nimoy.
It's a case of the actor not so much portraying the character, but rather his predecessor's portrayal of the character.
1) Well, no. I had a very strong case to defend. No formal charges were ever laid, but the arrest was for felony assault 3 of a minor. An element of the crime was "considerable pain for substantial time", and this was missing. The more proper charge would have been assault 4 of a minor which is a "catch all", that includes leaving a mark on a child under 13 (he is 9). A defense is to prevent the child from hurting himself or others. Our son has been diagnosed with PDD/NOS and has been hospitalized for observation because he was deemed "a danger to himself and others", and he has a propensity to run when he does not get his way, hence, my actions to restrain him, This is also why psychologists and psychiatrists are involved with us. The current consensus is that he is NOT PDD/NOS, but rather that he has behavioral issues due to his mother not establishing ANY boundaries.
Now, I have been seeking custody of our kids, and the standard is their "best interest". So, yes, psychological evaluations are the norm, particularly if the family already has involved such people for their kids.
Therein lies the legal problem: I could not proceed unless the case against me was closed. The state was not proceeding with formal charges (which would mean a trial in 90 days or less), but they were not closing the case either. (I bailed myself out of jail.) The only way to close the case was to plead to "something" to make the prosecuting attorney happy. Disorderly conduct seamed like a nice catchall, and it fit the statutory definition: acting in such a manner as to make someone assault you (e.g. restraining a child in public). I pled guilty, was given a 90 day sentence, all 90 days suspended for two years, and a $1000 fine. This closes the case.
2. Oh there are plenty of issues. Mother is an unfit parent, and I am seeking custody.
3. Tangentially related: the State gives so much power to kids and wrests them from parents without due process (since taking your kids does not involve your liberty, it is handled in the civil courts). Once they have them, they can "treat" them, and guess who pays the bill? Criminal charges are another possibility, but unnecessary to ruin families and lives.
I know people who fear to discipline their kids in the mildest manner (groundings, withholding of privileges), because the kids pick up the phone, and threaten to call CPS with allegations of abuse.
So the state, by so empowering kids by claiming to "protect" them IS parenting them, because they've made real parenting a legally risky business fraught with the possibility of criminal charges and civil financial persecution.
Ideally, in my case, police (or the prosecuting attorney) would readily see that assault 3 was way out of line, and discovery would reveal that I'd have an affirmative defense against assault 4 to restrain our son because of his mental diagnosis and behavioral history. Might take a few days in jail to sort it out (better safe than sorry), but in a reasonable world, the case would likely be dropped without charges laid.
But, in this world, the prosecuting attorney will either pursue the case, or just as bad, sit on it, leaving a cloud of uncertainty over one's head. The statute of limitations here is five years.
Interestingly, that same affirmative defense would NOT have worked against a disorderly conduct charge, even though it would work against the more serious charge of assault 4.
So, yes, when parents call a kid's bluff, they can very easily find themselves in big legal trouble in this era of "protect the children" hysteria. The state very much IS parent.
Oh, and as to your claim that males abuse kids more than females, care to provide a cite? Evidence suggests the opposite is true: a child living in a fatherless home is more likely to suffer domestic violence.
Last time I checked 3 includes 2. I added one more. So, sue me.
We divorced two and a half years ago. Since, she's gone a little (well, a lot) loco. I did not have a kid with a crazy bitch. I had a kid (two actually) with a woman who started to go nuts after the second of the two we agreed to have was born.
Finally, I am seeking custody of both kids now that she is running afoul of truancy laws, has assaulted our daughter, and other general neglect and abuse. Unfortunately, opinions of mental health professionals carry weight and I disagree when "popular" choice is less safe than "unpopular" choice.
As to why didn't I seek custody during te divorce? Arguing who would be the "better" parent (without the day to day "living with" influence of the other) would have been speculative, and where we divorced, if only one spouse works, they pay BOTH attorneys -- that was money that could serve our kids' needs better than those of attorneys. So, I gave her a chance. She blew it. Of coursed, "fixing things" is now much harder than had I chosen to fight for custody in the first place, but hindsight is always 20/20.
One by one, the kids are literally running away from her and seeking shelter with me.
Parents are not ALLOWED to parent their children in America. That's the State's job. (Somewhere, Mussolini is laughing.)
Two anecdotal incidents:
1. My son is wont to run off without looking or thinking if he does not get what he wants (Mom tends to give in to irrational desires, me: far less so). I stopped him from trying to run into highway traffic while he was having one of his fits because he did not want shoes. Later, his mother called police because there was a small abrasion on his stomach. (I held him around the abdomen.) I was arrested, jailed for felony assault of a minor, and eventually pled guilty to disorderly conduct -- not because I was fearful of facing the charge -- but because it was necessary that the case be closed so I could continue to parent my kids: the State had to give me a trial within 90 days of pressing charges, but they could sit on those charges for five years, keeping the case open. Besides, disorderly conduct in WA essentially is anything that might make someone assault you -- perhaps someone might think I was trying to kidnap him.
2. My daughter wanted to meet a much older person she was chatting with online. I though it a perfect chance to teach how to meet strangers, that might become friends, even as I was wary. I set ground rules: I come along, we meet in a very public restaurant for lunch, we go our separate ways, we do not disclose where we live, we make sure we are not followed after. I was wary about this person's intentions but figured a blanket veto would just encourage a secret meeting which could be far more dangerous. I drilled her on "stranger safety" before the meeting and debriefed her after. This was deemed by a mental health professional as a "poor choice" and that the veto would be better.
3. A friend of my daughters recounted how some female classmates wanted her to be "in" on their plan. They were upset at how much homework a male teach was assigning and were to accuse, en masse, that he sexually abused them, figuring their numbers would bolster the believability of the allegation.
The bottom line is that effective parenting can get one jailed these days. And, I know many parents who outright fear their kids.
Er, what's the difference between inspecting the whole packet once and inspecting each layer of it once? kernel/user and process context-switching overhead? I guess, but the layer isolation reduces inter-layer bug interactions, and the overhead can be overcome with "more horsepower".
You get fast and unstable or slower and more reliable. Take your pick.
The upside to UTM is that "one appliance does it all". The downside, of course, is that "one appliance does it all", and therefore runs out of horsepower quickly if doing a lot.
You can either use a heterogenous solution, or a clustered homogenous one: the latter less efficient than the former (since, though you can tune individual elements= to focus on particular layers and protocols, you still are looking at everything on each node. However, the benefits of clustering are physical homogeneity: you don't have a separate firewall, anti-spam, anti-virus, etc. device.
For home/SOHO use, the UTM approach is likely the best one in terms of simplicity, price, and adequate performance.
UTM: unified threat management.
Disclaimer: I work for a manufacturer of such devices.
The better ones integrate with Active Directory and/or Kerberos to authenticate sessions, and do spam and virus scanning (using a quarantine server, if available).
Some will even decrypt and reencrypt HTTPS traffic to check what's in it. (They resign the server's cert with their own CA cert that the user's browser has to trust -- in some environments, an intermediate CA cert can be imported signed by a CA cert that has already been pushed to the desktops.)
Some will even set up VPNs via a PC-based admin app in a step as simply as drag and drop.
That said, they don't come cheap: figure $500 and up for a home/SOHO office version (3 lan ports, DMZ, and one or two WAN ports (for WAN failover), along with licensing for virus and SPAM scoring server access.
I remember well an analysis of algorithms course I took around 1981. I also took the advanced graduate version of that course, from the same professor, in 1982.
In the undergraduate course, much of the the work dealt with sequences, series, mathematical proofs, and, yes, analyzing algorithms in "big-O" notation (which required competence in the former).
We were told up front that half the class would either drop out or fail. The professor would not accept assignments handed in late (even five minutes), and assign an automatic zero. We could collaborate on homework, but, if (say) three of us collaborated (and secret collaboration was likely to be detected given the nature of the assignments), we were expected to provide three novel proofs, implementations, etc.
The course text was Donald Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming". As I recall, much of the coursework for the undergraduate course was drawn from "Fundamental Algorithms" and "Seminumerical Algorithms" and the graduate course from "Sorting And Searching" (volumes 1 and 2, and 3, respectively), though there was some overlap.
All this was disclosed early enough in the semester for students to reconsider another course.
This particular professor was taken to making intentional errors in presenting the material, and berate students who did not catch them and speak up. Of course, pointing out an error that wasn't would be worse. Assignments in the graduate equivalent of this course always contained an unsolved problem in the field.
We learned to study and analyze algorithms as if our very lives depended on it.
This was not a required course for the Honours program. (Canadian Universities of the time typically had several specializations for undergraduate degree programs, and "Honours" was a particularly inclusive and difficult specialization among all the others -- basically, "all the other work and then some". One was also required to maintain an 80 or better course average over three years: the equivalent of being able to graduate "with honors" in other programs, either magna cum laude or summa cum laude. So to graduate "in Honours" meant you automatically graduated with honors.)
But, a handful of us were real masochists for which a 4.0 GPA alone was not enough to distinguish ourselves. (Crap, you could get that in the much maligned "business" major.)
I submit one does not see this "love of the art" anymore.
Yes, of course.
My thinking was regarding the providing of harmful substances directly to children without the oversight of a parent or guardian.
Society generally defines things as helpful, benign, or harmful, in various contexts.
The presumption is that nothing be provided to children without the approval of a parent or guardian unless it can be shown that it would be immediately harmful not to. For example, clearly one feeds a child healthy food if their parent starves them.
That stops others from offering a child anything deemed harmful, even doing so in moderation may have an educational benefit -- the short term harm being outweighed by the long term benefit is something I don't want the state to have -- only those with authority over the child. That takes care of moderate amounts of arguably harmful substances in an educational context.
However, now the burden shifts on the parent or guardian to demonstrate the help outweighs the harm, and a body of case law and evidence can back this up: clearly there is no reason to intoxicate a child, for example, even if giving a shot glass worth of beer to a 9 year old with a heavy meal is a decent introduction to alcohol. The body produces alcohol all on its own, and has alcohol dehydrogenase to metabolize it -- if the quantities involved are comparable to what the body could conceivably produce on its own within the limits of what it can metabolize quickly, that is a good defense.
Contrast teenager who has developed a taste for alcohol. Perhaps a good hangover might be in store to teach him or her a lesson. But, at this point there is just cause to seek professional medical and possibly mental health advice, to help comping to the conclusion that this would be a good idea.
Generally, the greater the risk, the more the burden falls on proving it is warranted, particularly when acting in the manner of a guardian.
I can't however, see any benefit to introducing a child to things like cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, etc.