Are are you commiting a crime when you claim that you are not guilty and the court later still finds you ws guilty,
No. In this case, you are merely making a statement about how you plead Not about whether you are guilty.
I gather, that if you are then asked by the court "Did you commit the crime", and you say "No", then you are committing perjury (assuming you're later found guilty). You can always refuse to answer the question under US law.
Try buying a PC from a big-box store these days without Mcafee or Norton on it.
Okay. Now what? But that's beside the point. The idea is that rather than offer Windows and anti-virus tools, you release a modified version of Windows which will install all the anti-virus software as part of the standard install, and possibly even modify the install process so that it's more secure from the start.
And it's not like there's a shortage of mythological characters with great sounding names.
I wonder why they keep going for the Roman and Greek names. It's not like the Babylonians, Aztecs, Indians, Egyptians or Norse were short of gods. And those are just the well known cultures.
So, what MS needs to do is licence their OS to sublicensors. They can include whatever extra security tools, browsers, media players and the like they want. Would probably work out for MS fairly well, and would definitely allow a properly integrated security system.
It allows a larger screen. Most people want a full sized screen and a full set of controls, without the device being any larger. The Sony-Ericsson P900 uses a compromise where the button flap folds down, but it's not great. Personally, I think you could probably manage this by putting the buttons on the back, but that perhaps people find that configuration disconcerting or impractical for some reason.
Oh, and the thing is described as "biometric" which can't be right, as they've never taken any biometrics from me.
Isn't a photograph a biometric identifier? I'm sure security people classify it as such, and politicians never pass up a chance to obfuscate by using arcane terminology for something simple.
But this is always a problem with terrorist scenarios. they expect way too much sophistication. Low tech ways of doing this are a lot easier. You just choose to blow up a location with a lot of American visitors.
They should use the Tom Sawyer method. People value what they have to pay for far more than what they can get for free. As soon as you charge them for the generous service of hosting their music videos, it suddenly becomes something they'll want a lot more. Then they'll start fighting for the priviledge of paying you. Otherwise, they'll just want money.
The fact that he made money simply shows that he was offering a service that people were willing to pay for. Why does this have any bearing on the loss someone else has? If I'm given $1 to destroy your property, would you be entitled only to $1 compensation from me?
But isn't it more likely he has just taken them wherever he has gone?
Perhaps, but gold isn't that portable. The value is somewhere between $500-$1000 per ounce, so at best, if he spent that $12million on gold, then he'd have to lug 750 pound of the stuff around with him. Not dsure I'd want to store that in a beat up old car.
Fair enough. I take it you're also of the same opinion about file sharers then.
Piracy must be fought by all legal means possible. Pirates cause losses on an immense scale; all the time lost by artists having missing sales. All the bandwidth, processing power on routers, etc. Pirates are thieves of the worst kind;
In addition they write virusses to harvest email adresses. They operate large zombie networks to attack companies who try to fight spam. They try to hack every webserver to use as a spamhost. They're far more than just a nuisance, they're like the plague, and should be stopped at all cost. I rate them worse than drug dealers. Drug dealers at least see the people whom they destroy. Spammers are all the more despicable, thinking they can pull all this crap totaly anonymous. So yeah, let AOL do EVERYTHING they can to collect the millions the spammer illegally made. Go AOL, GO!
Yeah. So you don't like virus writers.... Viruses are criminal damage. Why not prosecute for that?
No matter how irritating spam is, does it really deserve such extreme aggressive measures to punish the guilty?
Perhaps those who agree with this are also the ones who agree that the RIAA are right to sue file sharers, but if not, isn't there a certain amount of hypocrisy here?
Slashdot Mirror
So, you can probably demonstrate that you do this.
Are are you commiting a crime when you claim that you are not guilty and the court later still finds you ws guilty,
No. In this case, you are merely making a statement about how you plead Not about whether you are guilty.
I gather, that if you are then asked by the court "Did you commit the crime", and you say "No", then you are committing perjury (assuming you're later found guilty). You can always refuse to answer the question under US law.
Then, when they asked her on the stand if that is her harddrive, she would have to commit perjury
She would say "yes". She has the receipt to prove it. If she really wants to, she could duplicate disk 2 back to disk 1.
I'd say nothing beats a roadkill sandwich.
Yes, but this only applies using modulo 2 arithmetic. Jesus and evolution are not a binary choice.
And what's this about not getting too technical. We're geeks and nerds. Technical is what we do!
Try buying a PC from a big-box store these days without Mcafee or Norton on it.
Okay. Now what? But that's beside the point. The idea is that rather than offer Windows and anti-virus tools, you release a modified version of Windows which will install all the anti-virus software as part of the standard install, and possibly even modify the install process so that it's more secure from the start.
And it's not like there's a shortage of mythological characters with great sounding names.
I wonder why they keep going for the Roman and Greek names. It's not like the Babylonians, Aztecs, Indians, Egyptians or Norse were short of gods. And those are just the well known cultures.
Indeed.
So, what MS needs to do is licence their OS to sublicensors. They can include whatever extra security tools, browsers, media players and the like they want. Would probably work out for MS fairly well, and would definitely allow a properly integrated security system.
The problem is, Orion is a really well known name. We don't really want to reuse Saturn, Apollo, or Mercury for similar reasons.
However, I have a feeling it's going to be less reliable than Ancient technology.
Well, lets be honest, ancient technology was built to last. Anything that broke easily isn't around anymore.
They're basically patenting logic and Math equations.
So why is this any worse than patenting physical and chemical effects?
Nobody knows anything about the Wii.
It allows a larger screen. Most people want a full sized screen and a full set of controls, without the device being any larger. The Sony-Ericsson P900 uses a compromise where the button flap folds down, but it's not great. Personally, I think you could probably manage this by putting the buttons on the back, but that perhaps people find that configuration disconcerting or impractical for some reason.
Technically, yes.
Practically speaking, they make it as much hassle as possible.
Oh, and the thing is described as "biometric" which can't be right, as they've never taken any biometrics from me.
Isn't a photograph a biometric identifier? I'm sure security people classify it as such, and politicians never pass up a chance to obfuscate by using arcane terminology for something simple.
But this is always a problem with terrorist scenarios. they expect way too much sophistication. Low tech ways of doing this are a lot easier. You just choose to blow up a location with a lot of American visitors.
Wow, who pays for that?
I believe Oscar Wilde would consider you a cynic.
They should use the Tom Sawyer method. People value what they have to pay for far more than what they can get for free. As soon as you charge them for the generous service of hosting their music videos, it suddenly becomes something they'll want a lot more. Then they'll start fighting for the priviledge of paying you. Otherwise, they'll just want money.
I'm suggesting the RIAA should be able to dig up a pirate's lawn in retaliation.
I live on an elliptical planet with an extremely high rate of rotation, you insensitive clod.
But this would make sense. I bet we get even more anomolies when we start getting some serious data on extra-solar planets still.
The fact that he made money simply shows that he was offering a service that people were willing to pay for. Why does this have any bearing on the loss someone else has? If I'm given $1 to destroy your property, would you be entitled only to $1 compensation from me?
But isn't it more likely he has just taken them wherever he has gone?
Perhaps, but gold isn't that portable. The value is somewhere between $500-$1000 per ounce, so at best, if he spent that $12million on gold, then he'd have to lug 750 pound of the stuff around with him. Not dsure I'd want to store that in a beat up old car.
Fair enough. I take it you're also of the same opinion about file sharers then.
Piracy must be fought by all legal means possible. Pirates cause losses on an immense scale; all the time lost by artists having missing sales. All the bandwidth, processing power on routers, etc. Pirates are thieves of the worst kind;
In addition they write virusses to harvest email adresses. They operate large zombie networks to attack companies who try to fight spam. They try to hack every webserver to use as a spamhost. They're far more than just a nuisance, they're like the plague, and should be stopped at all cost. I rate them worse than drug dealers. Drug dealers at least see the people whom they destroy. Spammers are all the more despicable, thinking they can pull all this crap totaly anonymous. So yeah, let AOL do EVERYTHING they can to collect the millions the spammer illegally made. Go AOL, GO!
Yeah. So you don't like virus writers.... Viruses are criminal damage. Why not prosecute for that?
No matter how irritating spam is, does it really deserve such extreme aggressive measures to punish the guilty?
Perhaps those who agree with this are also the ones who agree that the RIAA are right to sue file sharers, but if not, isn't there a certain amount of hypocrisy here?
Nope. He just wants to get a load of mates round his XBox and play it before everyone else manages.