But that is the idea. The only way that has any chance of wining the fight is by forcing them to take more and more extreme measures until enough people are pissed with them.
If you have no control over the data being transported through you as often is the case with these darknet programs you are probably protected by the same DCMA provisions that protect the ISPs. That is, until they change the law. But then again you can make it in a way that never a complete file passes through you, and data never stays within your system.
The wire fraud charges brought against Swartz were only possible because LaMacchia's "loophole" was closed.
There is no such concept as "fraudulent access" that applies to wire-fraud charges. Wire-fraud is a crime which formerly required money gain to the perpetrator, and now requires any gain or "potential" gain, as long as the property acquired can generate at least U$ 1000,00 in six months. It doesn't matter any more if it will.
27 M dollars is hardly something worth alienating a nation for, and especially hardly worth the trouble of antagonizing WTO. US will probably lose probably a lot more than it would have by complying with WTO decision.
The best way to assure that things will go down the drain quickly is to keep from pushing back when the stakeholders try to push their way because of a misguided sensation of futility.
The possibility, high as it may be, that fighting back won't be enough is no justification to stay put and let things burn.
Now you are being the hypocrite here, 'Basil' (or should I call you Mr. Bush?). See the proper use of the word? Do you need me to explain to you in more detail the definition of the word you so much like to misuse?
Why should I get permission from someone to check if my data is being mishandled by him? It is absurd. A scan, as he did it, is very far from breaking into the system and accessing information you shouldn't have access to.
You are right. With this data the study seems to imply that women commit by far more misconducts proportionally, as they represent a much lower minority than 32 to 68.
I know I don't use them. And it is not because Apple is a big corporation with many shady practices. As it was mentioned in this thread all of them are.
It is because their policies and practices are more restrictive, aggressive and authoritative than the alternatives. This case is an example. All of the companies mentioned are guilty of making a cartel to fix salaries, but Jobs took it to another level, by coercing, intimidating and blackmailing companies into joining their illegal agreement.
They are certainly all to blame. That does not prevent us from saying someone specific is an asshole because of that, and does not make it less true either. I am tired of seeing people here thinking that being one among others makes you less guilty than if you were doing it alone.
Nope. The blog clearly compares each crime defined in US as Violent Crime to those in UK and shows that if you use the same definition in both countries US will ALWAYS have a higher rate. Check it again. Read it this time.
And regardless of what a single study seems to suggest, reality certainly says otherwise. US crime rates are among the highest in the world, higher than many underdeveloped countries, mind you, and much higher than any country in the European Union, all of which have a much lower part of its population incarcerated.
Firstly it was not me who made that claim (even though it is indeed a correct claim). Go back and check.
Secondly you also made a claim, a claim that despite the homicide rate of US being much much higher, somehow, magically this thing you call "violent crime rate", whatever that may be is twice higher in UK, which is obviously false.
Even more, apparently you aren't even able to objectively define what is a "violent crime".
All depends on how you define "violent crime". Where did you get this idea that UK "violent crime" rate is bigger than in US on the first place? For one crimes with firearms are much more frequent in US, which should be obvious considering the higher accessibility to guns.
If you claim that UK, France and German have a higher violent crime rate than US, even though the homicide rate in US is ridiculously higher, the onus of the proof and of the definition of what is a violent crime is yours.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, yes. Now that you said it it, it weirdly reminds me of Java fixes, although it is arguable if the law needed any fix at all.
But that is the idea. The only way that has any chance of wining the fight is by forcing them to take more and more extreme measures until enough people are pissed with them.
If you have no control over the data being transported through you as often is the case with these darknet programs you are probably protected by the same DCMA provisions that protect the ISPs. That is, until they change the law. But then again you can make it in a way that never a complete file passes through you, and data never stays within your system.
The wire fraud charges brought against Swartz were only possible because LaMacchia's "loophole" was closed.
There is no such concept as "fraudulent access" that applies to wire-fraud charges. Wire-fraud is a crime which formerly required money gain to the perpetrator, and now requires any gain or "potential" gain, as long as the property acquired can generate at least U$ 1000,00 in six months. It doesn't matter any more if it will.
No. LaMacchia didn't do anything of the sorts, and the wire fraud charges were presented against him.
27 M dollars is hardly something worth alienating a nation for, and especially hardly worth the trouble of antagonizing WTO. US will probably lose probably a lot more than it would have by complying with WTO decision.
Apparently, at least in this case, you have absolutely nothing against vice, as long as the resulting profit goes to US companies.
The best way to assure that things will go down the drain quickly is to keep from pushing back when the stakeholders try to push their way because of a misguided sensation of futility.
The possibility, high as it may be, that fighting back won't be enough is no justification to stay put and let things burn.
Oh and no, it is not the fucking law. He didn't do anything illegal. It was just arguably against the ethic code of the school.
I can go and walk around the street checking if a bank has holes in its wall, all day if I so want, thank you.
No, my friend, you should be ashamed to be so ignorant about your native language. Tsk tsk...
Now you are being the hypocrite here, 'Basil' (or should I call you Mr. Bush?). See the proper use of the word? Do you need me to explain to you in more detail the definition of the word you so much like to misuse?
You don't even know the meaning of the word 'hypocrite' you are so happily using, but I guess that is to be expected from a troll.
Why should I get permission from someone to check if my data is being mishandled by him? It is absurd. A scan, as he did it, is very far from breaking into the system and accessing information you shouldn't have access to.
I highly doubt it was properly accounted for, as it seldom is in these cases.
You are right. With this data the study seems to imply that women commit by far more misconducts proportionally, as they represent a much lower minority than 32 to 68.
I know I don't use them. And it is not because Apple is a big corporation with many shady practices. As it was mentioned in this thread all of them are.
It is because their policies and practices are more restrictive, aggressive and authoritative than the alternatives. This case is an example. All of the companies mentioned are guilty of making a cartel to fix salaries, but Jobs took it to another level, by coercing, intimidating and blackmailing companies into joining their illegal agreement.
The interesting thing regarding government's wishes is that whatever is illegal today tends to be legal tomorrow.
They are certainly all to blame. That does not prevent us from saying someone specific is an asshole because of that, and does not make it less true either. I am tired of seeing people here thinking that being one among others makes you less guilty than if you were doing it alone.
This market segment won't disappear anytime soon, if it will at all.
Nope. The blog clearly compares each crime defined in US as Violent Crime to those in UK and shows that if you use the same definition in both countries US will ALWAYS have a higher rate. Check it again. Read it this time.
And regardless of what a single study seems to suggest, reality certainly says otherwise. US crime rates are among the highest in the world, higher than many underdeveloped countries, mind you, and much higher than any country in the European Union, all of which have a much lower part of its population incarcerated.
Oh and just because I am a kind soul I will show you why you are wrong:
http://rayrayallday.com/2013/01/11/the-difference-between-us-uk-violent-crime-rates-depends-on-definition-of-violent-crime/
Firstly it was not me who made that claim (even though it is indeed a correct claim). Go back and check.
Secondly you also made a claim, a claim that despite the homicide rate of US being much much higher, somehow, magically this thing you call "violent crime rate", whatever that may be is twice higher in UK, which is obviously false.
Even more, apparently you aren't even able to objectively define what is a "violent crime".
All depends on how you define "violent crime". Where did you get this idea that UK "violent crime" rate is bigger than in US on the first place? For one crimes with firearms are much more frequent in US, which should be obvious considering the higher accessibility to guns.
If you claim that UK, France and German have a higher violent crime rate than US, even though the homicide rate in US is ridiculously higher, the onus of the proof and of the definition of what is a violent crime is yours.
Easy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate