but when you say "The US (as a whole) sucks! and I'm free to say that if I want." Aren't you denouncing the country that gives you such a right?
Yep. But you are quite entitled to do so. It may even not be hypocritical. Freedom of speech is not a right granted by the government, or the country. Freedom of speech is an inherent right, not one that is granted to you. Any government has to remove that right. Their constitutional inability to do so is a small mitigating factor is they actually want to deprive you of such a fundamental human right.
Even countries at war do not reject all rights that the opposition had. The American revolutionaries must have had some respect for the british legal system, and even aspects of the government system for them to keep so much of it. They still rejected Britain.
Mebi and Gibi. A rarely used, but fairly official SI standard for powers of 1024 rather than powers of 1000 the Mega and Giga are meant to refer to.
It's there to remove confusion since memory quantities that are not neccesarily addressed using binary (e.g. hard disks, and data transfer rates) tend to use 1000 Bytes to the KByte.
The defendant is always obliged to prove his innocence when the prosecution has made a strong case for the defendant's guilt. This is why the defendant has the right to make a statement, call witnesses and cross examine the proecution.
Besides, when people are trying to convince me to donate money to help someone who, for all I know, is probably as guilty as sin. then they need to convince me. not the court. My determination of what causes to support is not based on any burden of proof. It's based on my own opinions. Currently, in my opinion, he's guilty, and the website supporting him makes no effort to change that belief.
I am not a court of law. I am not going to support the defence of someone unless they convince me that they are innocent.
Re:This is NOT right - Please DONATE to his fund
on
Adrian Lamo Pleads Guilty
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Why?
It seems he crosed the line into illegal hacking. The website gives no reason not to believe the prosecution's account of the case, and to accept that the penalty agreed to is proportionate.
Most people use Windows and an unpatched version of Outlook (even people who should know better). There are usually plenty of backdoors for the feds to exploit.
This policy should also apply to people who try use the 5 items or less queue with 6 items. People have a choice whether or not to do this. Whether they want to be shot for this is their choice.
Under common law, this is not the case. It depends on the specific laws of the state. For example, Under English Common law - which has exactly the same roots as US common law - it is illegal to shoot an intruder. This was established quite clearly in the Tony Martin case, where a burglar was shot, and Mr. Martin was charged with murder (later reduced to manslaughter on appeal).
The law in some US states does allow you to shoot intruders, but even this varies in limitation from state to state. Regardless, I don't believe that the law in those states is correct even where it is legal to kill intruders.
Generally, there is a concept of reasonable force when defending yourself. If someone attacks you with a weapon, then you may have no option but to kill them. This is fair enough. However, if someone is trying to steal your stereo, you have many options. You can let them run away, with no loss to yourself except the cost of a stereo. You can, if you are armed, demand that they surrender. Violence should only be used as a last resort.
I'll give him a fair chance to surrender. If he moves towards me...then he should hope to only have a flesh wound or two.
That's the key factor. There's a difference in laying in wait for a criminal (or shooting them as they run away), and firing whilst being attacked. Your property is not worth someone's life, even that of a criminal. Only protecting your life is worth that.
Nope; copyright is entirely civil law, not criminal
Are you sure about that? Sure, they'll most likely prosecute using a civil lawsuit, but I'm sure there are criminal penalties for various crimes relating to copyright infringement.
My sister gave me a bag full of Duplo blocks (many of which came from me) since her kids have outgrown them, and I'll give them to my kid when she's capable of using them.
This illustrates that one of the problems for Lego is that their product is just too damn durable:) People just don;t need to replace it.
The trouble is, most contracts can be cancelled, as long as there is reasonable notice from either party. "Reasonable" is a matter of opinion, but the ISP is in no way obliged to provide a service in perpetuity.
i think outsourcing is just a short sighted answer to make a quick buck. if you continue to outsource the work who's going to buy your product?
It's the prisoner's dilemma. True, there will be noody to buy their products, but most of the people who they'll sell the products to are people who work for other companies, and that they have no control over. They'll be outsourced whether you outsource or not. The only choice you have is to minimise your own risk given that they're going to do this.
Of course, larger companies should leap at the chance to increase regulation. It helps them entrench themsleves, improves the economy to increase sales, and raises the bar for new competitors.
It's true. Nobody ever learns anything by experimentation. For example, Rutherford learned the structure of the atom from a standard school physics textbook, as instructed by a qualified teacher.
And this guy might have made something of his life if he hadn't been fooling around with computers all the time and learned something useful.
I think forgery and fraud are different though. Passing off foreign banknotes is fraud, passing off national currency is forgery. Usually forgery has much higher penalties because of the destabilising effect it has on the economy. However, the laws on forgery will probably specify national currency.
There's no hard and fast rule. It's a matter of whether his intentions are honest or not. This is based on a subjective opinion, but I think what he wrote sounds like a thinly veiled threat (give me money or I reveal your secret to all the hackers of the world), and I believe that a lot of people would also see it that way.
Had he just disclosed the flaw, it would have been somewhat irresponsible considering only Best Buy have any need to know.
Had he disclosed the flaw to Best buy, and offered to fix it, then they would not have been obliged to hire him, but that's a risk he has to take. There is no law that says people are entitled to a profit from work they choose to do. If this business model isn't succesful, then he'll have to choose another one that is. However, identifying security holes could be good advertising. He is clearly capable of identifying them, and so is also probably capable of fixing them.
There are other things he could have tried. Revealed there was a flaw, but not specified what it was without threatening to release the information, or send them a patch, and let them buy the copyright.
For a homeowner, not an unreasonable amount, assuming you consider equity in your home part of your savings. A bit of a stretch, in definitions, but a remortgage would grant him a fair amount of money.
Slashdot Mirror
but when you say "The US (as a whole) sucks! and I'm free to say that if I want." Aren't you denouncing the country that gives you such a right?
Yep. But you are quite entitled to do so. It may even not be hypocritical. Freedom of speech is not a right granted by the government, or the country. Freedom of speech is an inherent right, not one that is granted to you. Any government has to remove that right. Their constitutional inability to do so is a small mitigating factor is they actually want to deprive you of such a fundamental human right.
Even countries at war do not reject all rights that the opposition had. The American revolutionaries must have had some respect for the british legal system, and even aspects of the government system for them to keep so much of it. They still rejected Britain.
Mebi and Gibi. A rarely used, but fairly official SI standard for powers of 1024 rather than powers of 1000 the Mega and Giga are meant to refer to.
It's there to remove confusion since memory quantities that are not neccesarily addressed using binary (e.g. hard disks, and data transfer rates) tend to use 1000 Bytes to the KByte.
Wow! Talk about a stupid comment.
The defendant is always obliged to prove his innocence when the prosecution has made a strong case for the defendant's guilt. This is why the defendant has the right to make a statement, call witnesses and cross examine the proecution.
Besides, when people are trying to convince me to donate money to help someone who, for all I know, is probably as guilty as sin. then they need to convince me. not the court. My determination of what causes to support is not based on any burden of proof. It's based on my own opinions. Currently, in my opinion, he's guilty, and the website supporting him makes no effort to change that belief.
I am not a court of law. I am not going to support the defence of someone unless they convince me that they are innocent.
Why?
It seems he crosed the line into illegal hacking. The website gives no reason not to believe the prosecution's account of the case, and to accept that the penalty agreed to is proportionate.
Oh, don't worry. Everything will just sort itself out on the 3rd July 2033.
Most people use Windows and an unpatched version of Outlook (even people who should know better). There are usually plenty of backdoors for the feds to exploit.
Are you saying the media companies are lieing to us!? Oh, the humanity!
This policy should also apply to people who try use the 5 items or less queue with 6 items. People have a choice whether or not to do this. Whether they want to be shot for this is their choice.
Under common law, this is not the case. It depends on the specific laws of the state. For example, Under English Common law - which has exactly the same roots as US common law - it is illegal to shoot an intruder. This was established quite clearly in the Tony Martin case, where a burglar was shot, and Mr. Martin was charged with murder (later reduced to manslaughter on appeal).
The law in some US states does allow you to shoot intruders, but even this varies in limitation from state to state. Regardless, I don't believe that the law in those states is correct even where it is legal to kill intruders.
Generally, there is a concept of reasonable force when defending yourself. If someone attacks you with a weapon, then you may have no option but to kill them. This is fair enough. However, if someone is trying to steal your stereo, you have many options. You can let them run away, with no loss to yourself except the cost of a stereo. You can, if you are armed, demand that they surrender. Violence should only be used as a last resort.
Considering they're mainly Hispanics, will these descriptions be particularly useful for differentiating specific people?
I'll give him a fair chance to surrender. If he moves towards me...then he should hope to only have a flesh wound or two.
That's the key factor. There's a difference in laying in wait for a criminal (or shooting them as they run away), and firing whilst being attacked. Your property is not worth someone's life, even that of a criminal. Only protecting your life is worth that.
Nope; copyright is entirely civil law, not criminal
Are you sure about that? Sure, they'll most likely prosecute using a civil lawsuit, but I'm sure there are criminal penalties for various crimes relating to copyright infringement.
Why are you being so cagey? Impersonating a representative of the RIAA is not considered an offence just yet.
I agree.
if(rand() * 1000 / RAND_MAX)
count_vote();
works better since rand() typically gives best randomness in the higher bits.
My sister gave me a bag full of Duplo blocks (many of which came from me) since her kids have outgrown them, and I'll give them to my kid when she's capable of using them.
This illustrates that one of the problems for Lego is that their product is just too damn durable:) People just don;t need to replace it.
Just write a new kernel already. By the time these disputes are settled, the whole OS is probably going to be totally out of date anyway.
The trouble is, most contracts can be cancelled, as long as there is reasonable notice from either party. "Reasonable" is a matter of opinion, but the ISP is in no way obliged to provide a service in perpetuity.
A median is an average. So is a mean, so is a mode. So is a midrange.
People usually mean "mean".
i think outsourcing is just a short sighted answer to make a quick buck. if you continue to outsource the work who's going to buy your product?
It's the prisoner's dilemma. True, there will be noody to buy their products, but most of the people who they'll sell the products to are people who work for other companies, and that they have no control over. They'll be outsourced whether you outsource or not. The only choice you have is to minimise your own risk given that they're going to do this.
Of course, larger companies should leap at the chance to increase regulation. It helps them entrench themsleves, improves the economy to increase sales, and raises the bar for new competitors.
It's true. Nobody ever learns anything by experimentation. For example, Rutherford learned the structure of the atom from a standard school physics textbook, as instructed by a qualified teacher.
And this guy might have made something of his life if he hadn't been fooling around with computers all the time and learned something useful.
I think forgery and fraud are different though. Passing off foreign banknotes is fraud, passing off national currency is forgery. Usually forgery has much higher penalties because of the destabilising effect it has on the economy. However, the laws on forgery will probably specify national currency.
There's no hard and fast rule. It's a matter of whether his intentions are honest or not. This is based on a subjective opinion, but I think what he wrote sounds like a thinly veiled threat (give me money or I reveal your secret to all the hackers of the world), and I believe that a lot of people would also see it that way.
Had he just disclosed the flaw, it would have been somewhat irresponsible considering only Best Buy have any need to know.
Had he disclosed the flaw to Best buy, and offered to fix it, then they would not have been obliged to hire him, but that's a risk he has to take. There is no law that says people are entitled to a profit from work they choose to do. If this business model isn't succesful, then he'll have to choose another one that is. However, identifying security holes could be good advertising. He is clearly capable of identifying them, and so is also probably capable of fixing them.
There are other things he could have tried. Revealed there was a flaw, but not specified what it was without threatening to release the information, or send them a patch, and let them buy the copyright.
For a homeowner, not an unreasonable amount, assuming you consider equity in your home part of your savings. A bit of a stretch, in definitions, but a remortgage would grant him a fair amount of money.
But that's just perl for you. One of the world's many write only programming languages.
I'd suggest perl. This is something a perl programmer could do in about half a minute.