The root problem is that the construction is taking months to complete.
It does not matter. The point remains — we have a network of public roads. If the Internet can, famously, "route around damage" why should other networks' attempts to do the same raise any controversy?
If some pipe between two ISPs went down, would there even be an argument on/. over whether it is Ok for folks to sabotage rerouting by publishing bogus routing data? Would the posts with suggestions on how to best do it achieve "+5 Interesting"? What's wrong with you, people?
Just because your taxes paid for it doesn't magically make it yours
Nobody else claimed it to be theirs for this reason — nor for any other reason. Except for the locals — even if they still want the others to help them remove snow from there.
It is public — which means, any member of the public can drive on it.
"Ah, but child likes to play there!!!" — too bad, teach him not to play, where the cars and other heavy machinery operate. "Slow children" grow up into slow adults...
Bad enough, that locals can put a policeman to exact tolls from outsiders — by giving them citations while letting locals off with a warning. For the local residents to sabotage even lawful access to the public street is utterly unethical.
Every day mail a stack of envelopes to a person asking them to admit to owing you a high value of money. [...] All this would cost you is the ink and paper to print them, the time to stuff the envelopes, and stamp costs.
It would seem, the letter must refer to an existing lawsuit — you have to keep filing them too, racking up filing fees. It may still be profitable and, obviously, there needs to be some safeguard against abuses. That there is not is the fault of Indiana's law-makers and/or judges.
The court can't change the rule, only the legislature can
I thought so too, but it seems, this rule is not a law, but a procedural rule actually set by the State's Supreme Court. The document is titled: "Indiana Rules of Court.
Rules of Trial Procedure". Either way, whether it is the law-makers or the law-interpreters (judges), who are responsible, the problem is with the legal system, which leaves no leeway for the judges.
debt collection industry, which is the group that makes most use of it.
I'd be interested in seeing your evidence of debt-collectors' contributions to politicians.
But, even if your accusation is true, the simple defense against the technique is to, instead of ignoring the letter, respond to it with a "No". Why didn't the target do that, I do not know. Maybe, being from Massachusetts, he thought he can pretend to not have received anything until somebody cornered him with the infamous "You are served!"
The way to prove laws are unjust is not to make it a terrible hardship for an innocent bystander.
We do not know, whether the plaintiff's intent was to expose the flaws in the state's legal system. Nor do we know, the target really was innocent, actually. Quite possibly, pan Zavodnik had a valid case — and if he didn't, Indiana should've dismissed his cases (he filed many) years ago.
But I'd be happy to hear your proposals on how to correct flaws in such a system... Raise awareness, perhaps? Print buttons, colored ribbons, and bumper stickers: "Abolish Rule #36"?
Every time someone uses the legal system to get at someone else in a way we deem "unjust", the bulk of our anger must be aimed not at the hacker, but at the system itself. Because as long as it remains there, it could be used against any one of us.
This is not the same as the case of hacker exploiting a weakness in a personal computer or a door lock — those are maintained by the victims themselves. No, this system and run by the establishment, but the victims are private citizens (and businesses). Whether it is a maliciously sent SWAT, or a case like this, the system is to blame first and foremost.
The winning technique used by the plaintiff was thus:
Send a letter to the target asking him to admit fault and owing a certain amount of money ($30K, $600K, whatever).
Wait for him to not respond in 30 days
Voila, by Indiana law, this not-responding is equivalent to the admission being sought.
Profit, obviously.
The judge, who awarded him $30K (plus interest), acknowledged the amount is "seemingly high" and the judgment "may seem extreme for the breach of contract for the purchase of a printer." But he wrote that he's constrained by how the Supreme Court had previously interpreted a state trial rule, called Rule 36, which sets the 30-day deadline for responding to requests for admissions.
The appeal court noted:
"He did not send requests claiming $30,000 and $300,000 and $600,000 in damages because he believes those figures are legally justified and thought Costello might agree," Vaidik wrote. "He sent them because he hoped Costello would not respond, rendering the matters admitted..."
Yes, he did, you dimwits. You sat on that rule for years and saw nothing wrong with it. You saw nothing wrong with it applied by your fellow pedigreed lawyers acting just as predatory — if only a little less obviously — against others. Suddenly, a man comes around filing his own lawsuits, representing himself in court — and you find yourself bound by your own arcane rules.
"Oh, but we did not mean for it be used that way." Well, you should not have written it that way then...
Whether the sold printer was broken, whether the seller really did try to sell a lemon — that's small potatoes. What pan Zavodnik exposed was the incompetence of Indiana's judges. Hurrah for the hacker!
The government expects your praise for persecuting you.
Not my praise, necessarily, but certainly that of the sheep, who believe — quite sincerely to my amazement — that "government is better than corporations"...
I never saw my first program run. I wrote it for our astronomy teacher, who gave me the "5" (Soviet system's equivalent for "A") for it — I gather, she was still in college herself. She needed some simple calculation coded — must've been her own class-exercise — and I used my dad's FORTRAN book to write it for her.
I think, I was 12 or 13 at the time. Formal education — Applied Math — came later.
They're "requesting" it in the same way that Vinnie from the mob "requests" protection money.
That's what the "strong state", that Statists constantly bleat about, brings.
It is inevitable. If you want the government to "take care" of you: educate your children, treat your sickness, punish the "evil corporations" for not providing you the service you want or even in a manner you want, ban the speech you don't want to hear, etc., they will become big enough to be able to destroy you for opposing them:
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have."
Vinnie from the mob backs his question by a threat of illegal activity: he will break your knee and/or window, if you refuse. The government does not do that — armed with the leverage given to them by the electorate, they may audit your tax-returns back into Stone Age, confiscate your bank-accounts, cancel (or not renew) your business license (somehow, operating a business stopped being a right and became a privilege), open investigations into your business practices (sexual and racial discrimination, anyone?). All legal, all enthusiastically supported by the same sheep, who claim, the money they pay in taxes "buys civilization".
I hope you agree that even if the government "can" currently do that (given that it's unlikely to prosecute itself for its own crimes)
I ask you again: what crimes? Please, cite the law being broken.
it should cease doing so
Cease what, exactly? Asking people questions about other people?
So when do we put these spooks in jail for their crimes?
First of all, FBI aren't "spooks" — you are confusing them with the CIA and other no-such-agencies. FBI are federal police, not spies.
More importantly, what crimes? It is not illegal for them to ask for the data... Moreover, the courts — you know, the ultimate deciders on what's legal — generally agree, that any information thus obtained is legitimate evidence and not against the Fourth Amendment.
It is called "The Third Party Doctrine" — once you allow a third party (such as your cell-phone carrier or Internet-provider) to know something, you do not have expectation of privacy... Sad, but true...
The government can bully them for it. Whether a particular company succumbs to the bullying or not may decide, whether you'll want to be (or become) their customer, but none of it is a "crime".
Wow, PopeRatzo, that was almost Libertarian of you, congratulations!
How about a job? Does anyone owe him a job, or is it Ok for employers to let go an employee for any reason — or with no reason at all?
Or, maybe, a wedding cake? Does anyone owe anybody a cake, or is Ok — in your opinion, not asking about laws here — for a baker to reject somebody's business?
What do you say to these yahoos, who claim, a business only exists because "we tolerate it"?
A system designed to be a TV — rather than a general-purpose computer — is ultimately more usable for the rest of the family. It also has a working remote control. I do resent the manufacturers' idiocies (Sony, for example, would not show "progressive" JPEG photographs, what?!), but a TV looks better and works better, than whatever you cook up yourself.
They also tend to have special processing chips inside, which can deal with video conversions without too much heat.
I wish, IPTV-sources have agreed on a format, though... For the time being we are using a separate "media center" here — would've been nicer, if the TV could just show the streams itself.
DLNA annoys me due to the transcoding cpu load on my server.
Huh? If your TV can show the original source — without the transcoding — then you've misconfigured your server. It should only be transcoding, if the original is not playable directly.
And if it is not playable directly, then is not it better to have a system capable of transcoding it (even if at high CPU cost), than not be able to watch it at all?
You not only need society's permission but its active support to run any kind of business without having to have your own personal army of thugs.
The government's role is to protect me from violence and help me enforce fair contracts. It must not be allowed to dictate, what services can be offered, by whom, at what price, etc. That it increasingly does so, is an obvious violation of our liberties.
Dunno about him, but I much prefer a strong state
Yep, Statists gonna State...
over which I have democratic control in the form of my vote
Yeah? And how is it working out for you? When a business needs government's permission to offer you their service? Do you have "democratic control" over Internet-service provision, for example? Are you happy with the government's ability to shut down Uber and Lyft? With the government, that can demand your cell-phone data from your cellular provider — and get it, or else the provider may run into difficulties renewing its license? With the police, who can confiscate your life savings on suspicion of tax-dodging, or simply because you have "too much" cash on you?
Is this the "strong state" you clamor for? Yeah, I know, let's all go raise awareness — that will surely help our strong, but benevolent and kind-hearted rulers realize the errors, nay, imperfections of their ways.
The freedom to pursue happiness is oh-so overrated...
You forgot the business license... from the state.
The property taxes.
The various fire codes, electrical codes, water and sewer hookups, etc etc The permits form the housing authority
Yes, you do Statist entirely too much.
Businesses are a *legal* construct, deal with it.
A businesses can exist without a government to issue permits, inspect premises, and ensure compliance (with whatever). Not the other way around. Suck it up, cupcake.
Do you [...] You are [...] You think [...] You have no idea [...] You probably [...] for you
This is not about me, asshole. Nor is it about my — no doubt, numerous — character flaws and bodily imperfections.
My arguments, which you have to ignore, because you can not refute them, are true regardless of who states them. The US is better than USSR/Russia on every characteristic. There is nothing you can blame USA for, that Russia has not done with gusto and many times over — and with murderous results.
There is no USA that stands alone. There is no nationalism in the upper echelons of western society.
Off-topic farts of an asshole, that has lost the argument. The statement was, USA is equally threatening to Europeans as Russia. I proved that statement false. Fuck you.
On occasion, they may even threaten violence — while accusing "the haters" of making them "feel unsafe". Obviously, some hate is more equal than others.
When this generation graduates and goes on to work at businesses (including their legal departments), as well as government-institutions, they'll bring their notions with them.
Your declaration of "facts" is completely unsubstantiated.
And yet, you would not refute even one of them...
Your post in pure garbage [...] your point of view is completely wrong [...] your idiotic view
You, anti-americans, are so funny... Please, don't hate...
Calling a piece of land part of the USA is an insignificant designation.
At least official annexation is honest and true.
Honest, huh? Sending special forces into Crimea without insignia was honest, huh? Lying to the world about Georgia's, Moldova's, or Ukraine's "nationalists" planning "massacres" was honest?
America dominated West Germany and Japan
America dominated both, because we won the war. USSR dominated its part of the "spoils" on the same justification. I posit, that the countries dominated by Americans did much better — the point, which alone makes America a better, rather than "equal", party in this comparison.
America's last land acquisition was not Hawaii. It was Iraq and Afghanistan.
Both remain independent countries with very different laws, customs, and values from America's. America's long-term goal was and remains to prop them up (the way we propped up Germany and Japan), rather than annex or keep in perpetual dependence.
Euros are not much better informed (am one), and Americans are no better than Russians.
Communism — first implemented in and spread with support of Russia — has killed 94 million people in the 20th century. What have the Americans ever done to you to even approach — much less equal — that?
I view both as equal threats to European countries.
I invite you to compare Western Germany, dominated by Americans, with Eastern Germany... Are you still certain, the threats are equal? Or are you too young to even know, what I'm talking about?
Stalin is — thanks in part to the propaganda campaign described in TFA — once again a Russia's hero. A "strong leader"... The moment it "rose from its knees" (Russian propaganda's favorite expression), the country went on to attack neighbors. And not just to right wrongs — real or perceived — but to annex territory and expand borders. With overwhelming support from the citizenry — who forgive their own squalor to their rulers in exchange for military victories. Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine — all European countries — have already become victims.
America's last land-acquisition was Hawaii... Are you still sure, the threats are equal?
Slashdot Mirror
It does not matter. The point remains — we have a network of public roads. If the Internet can, famously, "route around damage" why should other networks' attempts to do the same raise any controversy?
If some pipe between two ISPs went down, would there even be an argument on /. over whether it is Ok for folks to sabotage rerouting by publishing bogus routing data? Would the posts with suggestions on how to best do it achieve "+5 Interesting"? What's wrong with you, people?
Actually, no it does not.
Nobody else claimed it to be theirs for this reason — nor for any other reason. Except for the locals — even if they still want the others to help them remove snow from there.
It is public — which means, any member of the public can drive on it.
"Ah, but child likes to play there!!!" — too bad, teach him not to play, where the cars and other heavy machinery operate. "Slow children" grow up into slow adults...
Bad enough, that locals can put a policeman to exact tolls from outsiders — by giving them citations while letting locals off with a warning. For the local residents to sabotage even lawful access to the public street is utterly unethical.
Screw them — with rusty and dirty exhaust pipes.
It would seem, the letter must refer to an existing lawsuit — you have to keep filing them too, racking up filing fees. It may still be profitable and, obviously, there needs to be some safeguard against abuses. That there is not is the fault of Indiana's law-makers and/or judges.
I thought so too, but it seems, this rule is not a law, but a procedural rule actually set by the State's Supreme Court. The document is titled: "Indiana Rules of Court. Rules of Trial Procedure". Either way, whether it is the law-makers or the law-interpreters (judges), who are responsible, the problem is with the legal system, which leaves no leeway for the judges.
I'd be interested in seeing your evidence of debt-collectors' contributions to politicians.
But, even if your accusation is true, the simple defense against the technique is to, instead of ignoring the letter, respond to it with a "No". Why didn't the target do that, I do not know. Maybe, being from Massachusetts, he thought he can pretend to not have received anything until somebody cornered him with the infamous "You are served!"
We do not know, whether the plaintiff's intent was to expose the flaws in the state's legal system. Nor do we know, the target really was innocent, actually. Quite possibly, pan Zavodnik had a valid case — and if he didn't, Indiana should've dismissed his cases (he filed many) years ago.
But I'd be happy to hear your proposals on how to correct flaws in such a system... Raise awareness, perhaps? Print buttons, colored ribbons, and bumper stickers: "Abolish Rule #36"?
Every time someone uses the legal system to get at someone else in a way we deem "unjust", the bulk of our anger must be aimed not at the hacker, but at the system itself. Because as long as it remains there, it could be used against any one of us.
This is not the same as the case of hacker exploiting a weakness in a personal computer or a door lock — those are maintained by the victims themselves. No, this system and run by the establishment, but the victims are private citizens (and businesses). Whether it is a maliciously sent SWAT, or a case like this, the system is to blame first and foremost.
The winning technique used by the plaintiff was thus:
The judge, who awarded him $30K (plus interest), acknowledged the amount is "seemingly high" and the judgment "may seem extreme for the breach of contract for the purchase of a printer." But he wrote that he's constrained by how the Supreme Court had previously interpreted a state trial rule, called Rule 36, which sets the 30-day deadline for responding to requests for admissions.
The appeal court noted:
Yes, he did, you dimwits. You sat on that rule for years and saw nothing wrong with it. You saw nothing wrong with it applied by your fellow pedigreed lawyers acting just as predatory — if only a little less obviously — against others. Suddenly, a man comes around filing his own lawsuits, representing himself in court — and you find yourself bound by your own arcane rules.
"Oh, but we did not mean for it be used that way." Well, you should not have written it that way then...
Whether the sold printer was broken, whether the seller really did try to sell a lemon — that's small potatoes. What pan Zavodnik exposed was the incompetence of Indiana's judges. Hurrah for the hacker!
Not my praise, necessarily, but certainly that of the sheep, who believe — quite sincerely to my amazement — that "government is better than corporations"...
I never saw my first program run. I wrote it for our astronomy teacher, who gave me the "5" (Soviet system's equivalent for "A") for it — I gather, she was still in college herself. She needed some simple calculation coded — must've been her own class-exercise — and I used my dad's FORTRAN book to write it for her.
I think, I was 12 or 13 at the time. Formal education — Applied Math — came later.
STOP
END
Of course, it is legal. Moreover, they can blatantly lie too — unless under oath.
Your lawyer may advise you, their request is bluff and they have no leverage to compel you, but they can still try...
"Insightfulness" is rather skimpy today on /.
That's what the "strong state", that Statists constantly bleat about, brings.
It is inevitable. If you want the government to "take care" of you: educate your children, treat your sickness, punish the "evil corporations" for not providing you the service you want or even in a manner you want, ban the speech you don't want to hear, etc., they will become big enough to be able to destroy you for opposing them:
Vinnie from the mob backs his question by a threat of illegal activity: he will break your knee and/or window, if you refuse. The government does not do that — armed with the leverage given to them by the electorate, they may audit your tax-returns back into Stone Age, confiscate your bank-accounts, cancel (or not renew) your business license (somehow, operating a business stopped being a right and became a privilege), open investigations into your business practices (sexual and racial discrimination, anyone?). All legal, all enthusiastically supported by the same sheep, who claim, the money they pay in taxes "buys civilization".
I ask you again: what crimes? Please, cite the law being broken.
Cease what, exactly? Asking people questions about other people?
First of all, FBI aren't "spooks" — you are confusing them with the CIA and other no-such-agencies. FBI are federal police, not spies.
More importantly, what crimes? It is not illegal for them to ask for the data... Moreover, the courts — you know, the ultimate deciders on what's legal — generally agree, that any information thus obtained is legitimate evidence and not against the Fourth Amendment.
It is called "The Third Party Doctrine" — once you allow a third party (such as your cell-phone carrier or Internet-provider) to know something, you do not have expectation of privacy... Sad, but true...
The government can bully them for it. Whether a particular company succumbs to the bullying or not may decide, whether you'll want to be (or become) their customer, but none of it is a "crime".
Wow, PopeRatzo, that was almost Libertarian of you, congratulations!
How about a job? Does anyone owe him a job, or is it Ok for employers to let go an employee for any reason — or with no reason at all?
Or, maybe, a wedding cake? Does anyone owe anybody a cake, or is Ok — in your opinion, not asking about laws here — for a baker to reject somebody's business?
What do you say to these yahoos, who claim, a business only exists because "we tolerate it"?
A system designed to be a TV — rather than a general-purpose computer — is ultimately more usable for the rest of the family. It also has a working remote control. I do resent the manufacturers' idiocies (Sony, for example, would not show "progressive" JPEG photographs, what?!), but a TV looks better and works better, than whatever you cook up yourself.
They also tend to have special processing chips inside, which can deal with video conversions without too much heat.
I wish, IPTV-sources have agreed on a format, though... For the time being we are using a separate "media center" here — would've been nicer, if the TV could just show the streams itself.
Huh? If your TV can show the original source — without the transcoding — then you've misconfigured your server. It should only be transcoding, if the original is not playable directly.
And if it is not playable directly, then is not it better to have a system capable of transcoding it (even if at high CPU cost), than not be able to watch it at all?
The government's role is to protect me from violence and help me enforce fair contracts. It must not be allowed to dictate, what services can be offered, by whom, at what price, etc. That it increasingly does so, is an obvious violation of our liberties.
Yep, Statists gonna State...
Yeah? And how is it working out for you? When a business needs government's permission to offer you their service? Do you have "democratic control" over Internet-service provision, for example? Are you happy with the government's ability to shut down Uber and Lyft? With the government, that can demand your cell-phone data from your cellular provider — and get it, or else the provider may run into difficulties renewing its license? With the police, who can confiscate your life savings on suspicion of tax-dodging, or simply because you have "too much" cash on you?
Is this the "strong state" you clamor for? Yeah, I know, let's all go raise awareness — that will surely help our strong, but benevolent and kind-hearted rulers realize the errors, nay, imperfections of their ways.
The freedom to pursue happiness is oh-so overrated...
Yes, you do Statist entirely too much.
A businesses can exist without a government to issue permits, inspect premises, and ensure compliance (with whatever). Not the other way around. Suck it up, cupcake.
It has exactly one month protection for both tenant and landlord. If that's not enough for you, sign a longer lease...
BS. A business exists, because it provides service, that people are willing to pay for. It does not need "society's permission".
Statist much?
I won, asshole.
Hemorrhoidal asshole.
This is not about me, asshole. Nor is it about my — no doubt, numerous — character flaws and bodily imperfections.
My arguments, which you have to ignore, because you can not refute them, are true regardless of who states them. The US is better than USSR/Russia on every characteristic. There is nothing you can blame USA for, that Russia has not done with gusto and many times over — and with murderous results.
Off-topic farts of an asshole, that has lost the argument. The statement was, USA is equally threatening to Europeans as Russia. I proved that statement false. Fuck you.
Fuck you, asshole. That's the kind of "debating" you get for your name-calling.
Next time — behave...
For years the so-called "progressives" have been arguing for a ban on "hate speech". It is already verbotten on most campuses.
On occasion, they may even threaten violence — while accusing "the haters" of making them "feel unsafe". Obviously, some hate is more equal than others.
When this generation graduates and goes on to work at businesses (including their legal departments), as well as government-institutions, they'll bring their notions with them.
And yet, you would not refute even one of them...
You, anti-americans, are so funny... Please, don't hate...
Honest, huh? Sending special forces into Crimea without insignia was honest, huh? Lying to the world about Georgia's, Moldova's, or Ukraine's "nationalists" planning "massacres" was honest?
America dominated both, because we won the war. USSR dominated its part of the "spoils" on the same justification. I posit, that the countries dominated by Americans did much better — the point, which alone makes America a better, rather than "equal", party in this comparison.
Both remain independent countries with very different laws, customs, and values from America's. America's long-term goal was and remains to prop them up (the way we propped up Germany and Japan), rather than annex or keep in perpetual dependence.
Especially, if the people programming the said datamining routinely substitute "might" for "must", "likely" for "very likely", and so on themselves.
Communism — first implemented in and spread with support of Russia — has killed 94 million people in the 20th century. What have the Americans ever done to you to even approach — much less equal — that?
I invite you to compare Western Germany, dominated by Americans, with Eastern Germany... Are you still certain, the threats are equal? Or are you too young to even know, what I'm talking about?
Stalin is — thanks in part to the propaganda campaign described in TFA — once again a Russia's hero. A "strong leader"... The moment it "rose from its knees" (Russian propaganda's favorite expression), the country went on to attack neighbors. And not just to right wrongs — real or perceived — but to annex territory and expand borders. With overwhelming support from the citizenry — who forgive their own squalor to their rulers in exchange for military victories. Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine — all European countries — have already become victims.
America's last land-acquisition was Hawaii... Are you still sure, the threats are equal?
If only English had an authoritative collection of rules for them — the way Ukrainian and Russian have, for example.