Please do try and come up with an appropriate analogy next time. Fire and Police are there to protect the entire community. If your house catches fire, you don't want (unless you are a pyro) have it catch your neighbors house on fire.
Okie dokie, people without adequate healthcare are a potential danger to the community (would you like some typhoid fever with your burger Mr. A.C.), and a drain on productivity, both their own and those who have to eventually clean up the aftermath.
If you can't afford it, you don't deserve it. Plain and simple.
Well, how do you justify emergency services like a fire department responding to a property that can't damage community property, say a farmhouse that's a half a mile from the next nearest house? Or perhaps an education, should everyone who can't afford a private school simply be uneducated? Clearly if they can't afford it (education), they don't deserve it.
It's people like you that are the reason America is turning into a nation of lazy, stupid, cry-baby liberals (and yes I know that's redundant).
You misspelled stupid.
You are not entitled to have everything you want for free (or at someone else's expense), you have to work for it.
This tends to amaze me. Are you aware that the "stupid, cry-baby liberals" tend to live in areas with the highest incomes (you know, those darn Northeast and California elitists), and therefore are really talking about footing more of the bill for others and the common good than most of the "staunch conservatives" who come from red-states that gleefully suck up our tax money while complaining all the while about the people who provide the bulk of it?
No, but he has an ongoing, close friendship with an unrepentant, former PLO terrorist, Rashid Khalidi. Barack Obama attends Jew-bashing parties where the State of Israel, in which Arabs have more rights and freedom than in any other country in the Middle East, is called a "racist," "Apartheid" state and suicide/homicide bombings are declared justified.
Obama has been endorsed by Hamas, and Palestinians in Hamas-run Gaza are actively campaigning for him.
McCain has apparently been endorsed by Al Queda. You know what? Neither one of them have anything to do with nutjobs crawling out of the woodwork and talking about them. I don't hold the Hamas thing against Obama, and I don't hold the Al Queda thing against McCain.
Islamic Socialist dictator Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi agrees that Obama is a fellow Muslim. (I didn't know they had FOX News in Libya.)
We're taking Qadhafi's word for things now? So when Qadhafi tells us that the U.S. is an evil nation and it should perish, are you on board with that too, or just when he says something you find politically useful?
Obama himself has referred to "my Muslim faith." Freudian slip of the tongue? And his statement about campaigning in 57 states [of the Islamic Conference]? The self-proclaimed "citizen of the world" is campaigning internationally.
Yes, actually, when you record everything that someone says every time they speak you eventually catch them saying something that they didn't mean to say. Recently McCain was speaking in Pennsylvania, where he suggested that the Democrats were saying Pennsylvanians are racist. His comment was "And I couldn't agree with them more". Clearly he didn't mean to say that, but in your view he apparantly did mean it, and it was a "Freudian slip". You know what though, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and a mistake is just a mistake.
I think that this "Hussein" is kind of like the other "President Hussein" in some respects. They are/were both socialists. Recall that Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party is a Socialist party. I believe Obama is a nominal Muslim, basically a secular Arabist. Pan-Arab unity is an important pillar of Arab Socialism. From Obama's book Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." I realize that he was referring to Muslims in the U.S., but it still fits the ideology.
Umm, psst...Hey, superyooser. Obama isn't an arab. I know, the name thing can be confusing, really, but he's really not actually arabic.
Many Arab (and African) parties are socialistic. It is their way of getting revenge on the former white colonialist overlords. (Of course, they do have legitimate reasons for anger and demanding justice.) Obama is trying to superimpose this foreign paradigm of race-class oppression onto the U.S. by means of the slavery of one and a half centuries ago. As an American who happens to be white, I resent this wave of racist vengeance politics -- i.e. redistribution of wealth of whites/capitalists/Jews* to thugs -- in America, swelling with the hordes of fanatical Obama minions.
I actually liked Charlie Rangel's idea -- bring back the draft. That'll make the populace give a shit about when we send our sons and daughters into battle and ensure that a broad segment of society is carrying the weight.
I don't particularly like this one as forcing someone to join the military just doesn't fit into my idea of a free society (although I'd make an exception in a case where that society's existence was dependent on it). I'd rather go with something like a special "war tax", everyone pays, no exceptions, and it'd be a progressive tax to make sure everyone feels it equally. That would be a real attention getter, since not everyone has a son or daughter, but everyone has a wallet.
Okay, so a church in a largely black area tried to come up with a way to convince black people that it's okay for them to be Christians in the face of black Muslims telling them they couldn't. I'm still not seeing what's so awful here, or at least any more awful than most religious nonsense.
As for the rest, I'm not planning on wading though it since I just don't care. I don't see how thinking Jesus was black == "jew hating", but then again I can't imagine why so many people care about what a tiny group of goat-herders in the middle east did two millennia ago either. I don't share Obama's religious views, and as long as he keeps them private and doesn't make policy decisions based on them I don't really care if he's a Christian or a Wiccan or a Satanist.
Obama's past church is the United Church of Christ, which is described as a mainstream Protestant denomination with over 1 million members in the U.S., and I rather doubt that's what Toll_Free was getting at (could be wrong though).
And I've just got to know, what exactly are "jew hating items"? If I were to walk into one of these places am I going to find Swastikas and cans of Zyklon B stacked in the corners?
I have, for almost a year, told people that I thought McCain will be president. Not that I thought he would be the BEST pres, but that he would make it. I STILL believe this, only because of the skin color issue.
Okay, so you think the majority of the voters are racists. Right now it looks like you're wrong, which is fine by me.
I have a LOT of friends in the South, as well as the North (lived in Texas, spent 20 percent of my time in our offices in the North). None of them are ready to "put the black man in office", although when you talk to them publicly, they all think He's the greatest thing since sliced bread.
So they think he's a good candidate, but they won't vote for him because he's the wrong colour? Doesn't say much for your friends, does it?
Do I now think that The Obamaton will be pres... Probably. This has MORE to do with the media coverage than anything.
His name is Obama. Changing his name in some not-particularly-clever way tends to be a red-flag that what you have to say won't be particularly insightful or worthwhile. As for media coverage, I've heard plenty about both of these guys in the media, or are you going with the "liberals control the media so McCain can't get a fair shake" angle?
My MAIN issue with Obamanation is this: You can "council" or scream, or whatever change all you want, but Obamanation is this: An empty suit. WHAT CHANGE? HOW WILL YOU EFFECT IT?
There's that stupid name thing again....Anyway, he has an economic plan, he has intentions regarding the war in Iraq, he has positions on the job market, and on and on and on. Are you simply unaware of what his positions are and unwilling to learn, or are you purposely ignoring them so that you can use the "empty suit" phrase.
I stand to "profit" from the Obamanation if he becomes president. How so: I am (unfortunately) on assistance these days, due to a motorcycle accident (Can't walk, stand or sit for any extended period of time, makes even the rehab a challenge, but I'm gettin through it). I don't see how or why I should get "more", though, even though I could use it, and would like it, I have a problem with taxing those who have more to give to people in my position.
So, first he's an empty suit that isn't going to change anything, but he's apparently going to change social entitlements, which you don't like either. At least this is something that we can work with, item, you don't like Obama because you don't approve of social programs to help the infirm, which includes yourself. Fine. Oh, and did I mention his name is Obama? You can stop typing after the second a.
Oh wait, before this, I WAS a small business owner, owned a home, etc. I know what his plans are.
Okay, so what are the secret plans? And also, how small a business was this that you spent 20% of your time in "our offices in the North"?
Obamanation and Jimmy Carter. One in the same, and it's going to play out about the same way.
Obama. His name is Obama. Anyway, in what way do you feel he's like Carter? You're throwing out a comparison with no supporting argument.
We, the people, have no clear cut choice anymore. It's the lessor of two evils. That doesn't mean an empty suit should get elected because he shammed a bunch of people with his screaming of change change change... Change what?
Just because you personally seem to be unaware of his positions and unwilling to find out what they are doesn't mean they don't exist. Laziness or ignorance, which is it?
Simply amazing, how much a group of sheeple the education system has spawned. I can remember my teachers teaching me to thi
So.. she logged into their shared avatar and deleted it.
No, she logged into *his* account and deleted it. He created the account prior to ever meeting her. If for some reason you gave me your slashdot login info to your current account, would that make it a "shared" account? Of course it wouldn't, you created the account completely independently long before we met.
The ownership of characters in the game is very murky... suppose they had both contributed items to this avatar, or worked on developing it.
Why would I want to suppose anything of the sort? He created the account before he met her, therefore it's pretty clear that it's his account.
Maybe it was for revenge, maybe it was some type of accident. Only she knows the true intent, we can only guess based on what she has said.
Yeah, if only she would speak out more clearly on the incident....oh wait, she did: "I was suddenly divorced, without a word of warning. That made me so angry," the official quoted her as telling investigators and admitting the allegations. She was mad, and to get back at him she used the logon info that he (stupidly) let her know to delete his account. Done and done.
Suppose I am writing a book.. I have the manuscript kept in a bank safety deposit box, which only I have access to. Each chapter is stored on one diskette.
For some reason I team up with a second author, I give him access to the vault with the only complete copy of all our work in it. Only the chapter we are working on is stored on our computers, once we are finished writing it, we move it to the vault to be assembled later.
Both of us do a lot of work editing and creating new materials, we have 30 chapters, the book is almost done...
But one day we have a disagreement, and I lock his account so he can't remotely login to the file server.
Unfortunately, I forgot to tell the bank not to let him into the vault anymore.
He uses his still working key to open the vault, takes the disks home, and burns them.
So who's guilty of the crime, and what is the crime?
That would be your co-author. If he wanted his access restored, and you were blocking access to a shared work, he could have gone to court and he would have had a good shot at getting his access back. By unilaterally going to the vault and destroying this shared work, he opened himself up to a potential lawsuit from you (if it had a chance of being published, he's denied you income from the shared work). What he wouldn't be liable for is breaking into the bank vault, since that was apparently joint between you and you had apparently notified the bank of this. If that's not the case, and it was your bank vault and he accessed it under false pretenses, such as impersonating you, then he might be on the hook for that as well. In the case of the Japanese woman, the fact that her character was divorced should have been a pretty clear message that he no longer wanted anything to do with her, and by using his credentials to delete his account was more akin to impersonating him than exercising joint authority over an account.
That entire scenario that you just described is completely irrelevant to what the woman in Japan did though. The difference between them is intent. In your example, junior did something that turned out to be stupid, but he didn't actually intend to cause any problems, and as a matter of fact thought what he was doing was perfectly acceptable. The woman in the story, with malicious intent, deleted an account that she knew was not hers to delete. Completely different thing. Let's take a real world example.... A sysadmin in San Francisco sets up a city network which only he has the credentials to fully control. He's fired. The city realizes that he has done this, and attempts to recover the password. He refuses. He is then picked up by the police and put in a cell. Comparison: A woman in Japan is given access to an account by another user due to the relationship that they have. That relationship ends. She deletes the other person's account for revenge. The other party realizes that she has done this. She is then picked up by the police and put in a cell.
Or, we can rework your example so that it actually fits: Senior IT manager gives a junior tech a cabinet key, an ip address, a rack id and rack slot number, and an Admin password, tells him to "have fun", "here's your machine to test things on". See, now he has credentials?
The junior tech is then fired a week later for coming it late and leaving early every day.
Junior tech logs into the machine anyway after realizing they haven't disabled his account, shuts it down, formats it, because he's going to teach those jerks a lesson for dumping him.
90 minutes later, everyone's wondering why their in-house application says "unable to connect to DB server", why their e-mail isn't working, and why the CFO can't login to her workstation.. something about no domain controllers being reachable...
So the junior tech go to jail for unauthorized access to the network. No one told him not to format that machine, or that the server he was logging into was the mother-of-all-servers-most-important-machine-in-the-building; and he tries to use this as his defense, but alas, the fact remains that he obviously knew all along that he wasn't supposed to do this. Should the company have disabled his account sooner? Yep, but it doesn't change the fact that he knew he was no longer supposed to be accessing the machine and he certainly knew he wasn't supposed to fuck it up just to teach someone a lesson.
Deleting someone's avatar when they don't want it to be done may be despicable, but if they gave the credentials, and failed to explicitly revoke the authorization, it seems the person's access was authorized...
So what if she were an admin and decided to delete a project from her company's source repository because she was mad at the project manager? Just because you have the access and ability to do something doesn't mean you're authorized to do anything you want.....
I don't think they were necessarily trying to fool anyone....it's such a bad job that it's on the level of drawing a mustache on your "enemy's" picture during class president elections in high-school. Childish and stupid.
Unless I missed something, nobody's being sued for $250k. The maximum fine for what this kid is accused of doing is $250k. That doesn't go to Palin, it goes to the government. If the person that broke into your account were to get caught they could be subjected to the same fine, and you still wouldn't get a dime.
Oh, and as far as wishing you could sue for $250k, go right ahead, sue whomever you like for whatever amount you like. If you can convince a judge and jury that it's justified, you may just win. I wouldn't start spending it just yet though.....
Well, since both names came up, how about a Neal Gaiman/Terry Pratchett collaboration....As pointed out in this thread, Gaiman has his ties to HHGTTG (as the gp mentions), Pratchet really is a great fit, and they did a great job on Good Omens together.
Some maybe, but it seems that most of the people I talk to really want internet access, and maybe something like Office for the most part. Next comes music and the ability to play movies. Windows, OSX and Linux all offer these (assuming you don't mind substituting Open Office for Office on Linux). The other theme I run into over and over again is Windows boxes crapped up with spyware/viruses or just weirdly botched up, which I don't see very often with the OSX and Linux machines.
So, the Big Bang didn't "come from" anywhere. It's an ultimate origin, just like a Creator God.
No, it's the origin of the universe we inhabit, not necessarily the origin of *everything*. We don't know where it came from, or what caused it, but that doesn't mean that science just says, "Well, we don't know where it came from, so nothing can possibly have preceeded it". Maybe someday we will, but right there is the difference between science and religion. In science, you can say "I don't know yet", in religion, you fall back to "Because God willed it". Big difference.
The same thing that would happen if someone went through and pasted nudie pix onto the covers of plain paper copies of Esquire. Eventually someone working at the store would notice, and they'd have the option to either pay for the vandalized copies or talk to the friendly local police officer. It's not like these things are on a wireless network, it'd still require someone setting up shop to change the covers, which may or may not be obvious at first, eventually somebody would probably notice as they went from copy to copy hooking it up to a laptop or cutting the covers open to make changes....
Leave it to the cheese-eating surrender monkeys to have a problem with a law that so obviously helps in the War on Turr (tm). Pass the Freedom Fries.
No, I'd say it's meant to be a joke (I don't think anyone would use the phrases I bolded, especially the spelling of 'terror'), but I liked the second AC's response anyway.....
I'm surprised to see US and UK people make fun comments about the French over this.
In all fairness, I don't think I've seen any articles about similar issues in the US or UK where people don't make jokes about them as well. I'm no fan of the blind (and uncreative) anti-France jokes, but the others tend to be either gallows humour shared between prisoners waiting on line together for their turn at the noose or comments that would apply to any government that institutes a database like this. In this case, that it's France is only incidental to the point of some of the jokes.
I don't have 5 gallon buckets of Urine..how about you?
Then again, maybe the protesters didn't either. From the Star Tribune article: The alleged urine, Nestor maintained, was actually three buckets, two of which contained dirty water used to flush toilets while conserving water. The third was seized from an illegal apartment occupied by someone not connected to the RNC protests. There was no bathroom in the illegal apartment and urine was collected in a bucket, Nestor said.
The StarTribune article said the warrant included seizing MP3 players. How can these be used to break the law?
I wonder if the thinking is that the protesters were going to use them the way flashmobs have in N.Y.C.. Improve Everywhere does a thing with MP3s where everyone downloads an mp3, and at a predetermined time starts playing it to get instructions on what to do. I suppose that could be used as a strategy to get instructions out to be followed at certain times while guaranteeing that there are no radio transmissions for the police to overhear. I'm not saying this justifies taking the MP3 players, but it might make a little more sense as to why they were targeting them.
Slashdot Mirror
Okie dokie, people without adequate healthcare are a potential danger to the community (would you like some typhoid fever with your burger Mr. A.C.), and a drain on productivity, both their own and those who have to eventually clean up the aftermath.
Well, how do you justify emergency services like a fire department responding to a property that can't damage community property, say a farmhouse that's a half a mile from the next nearest house? Or perhaps an education, should everyone who can't afford a private school simply be uneducated? Clearly if they can't afford it (education), they don't deserve it.
You misspelled stupid.
This tends to amaze me. Are you aware that the "stupid, cry-baby liberals" tend to live in areas with the highest incomes (you know, those darn Northeast and California elitists), and therefore are really talking about footing more of the bill for others and the common good than most of the "staunch conservatives" who come from red-states that gleefully suck up our tax money while complaining all the while about the people who provide the bulk of it?
Wow....that's just....wow. Let's see here....
Wow, he knows this guy? Holy cow. Imagine if he had donated $800,000 to this guy, I bet that would sink his chances to be president. Man, that would be amazing if a presidential candidate did that. Oh..um, wait a minute, it appears that Senator McCain may have done that actually: McCain also has ties to Khalidi through a group that Khalidi helped found 15 years ago. The Center for Palestine Research and Studies has received more than $800,000 from an organization that McCain chairs. Well, now I guess you can't vote for him either.
McCain has apparently been endorsed by Al Queda. You know what? Neither one of them have anything to do with nutjobs crawling out of the woodwork and talking about them. I don't hold the Hamas thing against Obama, and I don't hold the Al Queda thing against McCain.
We're taking Qadhafi's word for things now? So when Qadhafi tells us that the U.S. is an evil nation and it should perish, are you on board with that too, or just when he says something you find politically useful?
Yes, actually, when you record everything that someone says every time they speak you eventually catch them saying something that they didn't mean to say. Recently McCain was speaking in Pennsylvania, where he suggested that the Democrats were saying Pennsylvanians are racist. His comment was "And I couldn't agree with them more". Clearly he didn't mean to say that, but in your view he apparantly did mean it, and it was a "Freudian slip". You know what though, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and a mistake is just a mistake.
Umm, psst...Hey, superyooser. Obama isn't an arab. I know, the name thing can be confusing, really, but he's really not actually arabic.
Okay, being worried about Obama
I don't particularly like this one as forcing someone to join the military just doesn't fit into my idea of a free society (although I'd make an exception in a case where that society's existence was dependent on it). I'd rather go with something like a special "war tax", everyone pays, no exceptions, and it'd be a progressive tax to make sure everyone feels it equally. That would be a real attention getter, since not everyone has a son or daughter, but everyone has a wallet.
Okay, so a church in a largely black area tried to come up with a way to convince black people that it's okay for them to be Christians in the face of black Muslims telling them they couldn't. I'm still not seeing what's so awful here, or at least any more awful than most religious nonsense.
As for the rest, I'm not planning on wading though it since I just don't care. I don't see how thinking Jesus was black == "jew hating", but then again I can't imagine why so many people care about what a tiny group of goat-herders in the middle east did two millennia ago either. I don't share Obama's religious views, and as long as he keeps them private and doesn't make policy decisions based on them I don't really care if he's a Christian or a Wiccan or a Satanist.
Obama's past church is the United Church of Christ, which is described as a mainstream Protestant denomination with over 1 million members in the U.S., and I rather doubt that's what Toll_Free was getting at (could be wrong though).
And I've just got to know, what exactly are "jew hating items"? If I were to walk into one of these places am I going to find Swastikas and cans of Zyklon B stacked in the corners?
Okay, so you think the majority of the voters are racists. Right now it looks like you're wrong, which is fine by me.
So they think he's a good candidate, but they won't vote for him because he's the wrong colour? Doesn't say much for your friends, does it?
His name is Obama. Changing his name in some not-particularly-clever way tends to be a red-flag that what you have to say won't be particularly insightful or worthwhile. As for media coverage, I've heard plenty about both of these guys in the media, or are you going with the "liberals control the media so McCain can't get a fair shake" angle?
There's that stupid name thing again....Anyway, he has an economic plan, he has intentions regarding the war in Iraq, he has positions on the job market, and on and on and on. Are you simply unaware of what his positions are and unwilling to learn, or are you purposely ignoring them so that you can use the "empty suit" phrase.
So, first he's an empty suit that isn't going to change anything, but he's apparently going to change social entitlements, which you don't like either. At least this is something that we can work with, item, you don't like Obama because you don't approve of social programs to help the infirm, which includes yourself. Fine. Oh, and did I mention his name is Obama? You can stop typing after the second a.
Okay, so what are the secret plans? And also, how small a business was this that you spent 20% of your time in "our offices in the North"?
Obama. His name is Obama. Anyway, in what way do you feel he's like Carter? You're throwing out a comparison with no supporting argument.
Just because you personally seem to be unaware of his positions and unwilling to find out what they are doesn't mean they don't exist. Laziness or ignorance, which is it?
No, she logged into *his* account and deleted it. He created the account prior to ever meeting her. If for some reason you gave me your slashdot login info to your current account, would that make it a "shared" account? Of course it wouldn't, you created the account completely independently long before we met.
Why would I want to suppose anything of the sort? He created the account before he met her, therefore it's pretty clear that it's his account.
Yeah, if only she would speak out more clearly on the incident....oh wait, she did:
"I was suddenly divorced, without a word of warning. That made me so angry," the official quoted her as telling investigators and admitting the allegations.
She was mad, and to get back at him she used the logon info that he (stupidly) let her know to delete his account. Done and done.
That would be your co-author. If he wanted his access restored, and you were blocking access to a shared work, he could have gone to court and he would have had a good shot at getting his access back. By unilaterally going to the vault and destroying this shared work, he opened himself up to a potential lawsuit from you (if it had a chance of being published, he's denied you income from the shared work). What he wouldn't be liable for is breaking into the bank vault, since that was apparently joint between you and you had apparently notified the bank of this. If that's not the case, and it was your bank vault and he accessed it under false pretenses, such as impersonating you, then he might be on the hook for that as well. In the case of the Japanese woman, the fact that her character was divorced should have been a pretty clear message that he no longer wanted anything to do with her, and by using his credentials to delete his account was more akin to impersonating him than exercising joint authority over an account.
That entire scenario that you just described is completely irrelevant to what the woman in Japan did though. The difference between them is intent. In your example, junior did something that turned out to be stupid, but he didn't actually intend to cause any problems, and as a matter of fact thought what he was doing was perfectly acceptable. The woman in the story, with malicious intent, deleted an account that she knew was not hers to delete. Completely different thing.
Let's take a real world example....
A sysadmin in San Francisco sets up a city network which only he has the credentials to fully control. He's fired. The city realizes that he has done this, and attempts to recover the password. He refuses. He is then picked up by the police and put in a cell.
Comparison:
A woman in Japan is given access to an account by another user due to the relationship that they have. That relationship ends. She deletes the other person's account for revenge. The other party realizes that she has done this. She is then picked up by the police and put in a cell.
Or, we can rework your example so that it actually fits:
Senior IT manager gives a junior tech a cabinet key, an ip address, a rack id and rack slot number, and an Admin password, tells him to "have fun", "here's your machine to test things on". See, now he has credentials?
The junior tech is then fired a week later for coming it late and leaving early every day.
Junior tech logs into the machine anyway after realizing they haven't disabled his account, shuts it down, formats it, because he's going to teach those jerks a lesson for dumping him.
90 minutes later, everyone's wondering why their in-house application says "unable to connect to DB server", why their e-mail isn't working, and why the CFO can't login to her workstation.. something about no domain controllers being reachable...
So the junior tech go to jail for unauthorized access to the network. No one told him not to format that machine, or that the server he was logging into was the mother-of-all-servers-most-important-machine-in-the-building; and he tries to use this as his defense, but alas, the fact remains that he obviously knew all along that he wasn't supposed to do this. Should the company have disabled his account sooner? Yep, but it doesn't change the fact that he knew he was no longer supposed to be accessing the machine and he certainly knew he wasn't supposed to fuck it up just to teach someone a lesson.
Look, I realize that Saturday Night Live stopped being funny years and years ago, but blaming it on the Federal Reserve is just silly.
So what if she were an admin and decided to delete a project from her company's source repository because she was mad at the project manager? Just because you have the access and ability to do something doesn't mean you're authorized to do anything you want.....
Perhaps he's under 35?
Same here. Most of the responses were pretty random and pointless. There was one cute exchange at the beginning though:
Elbot:Who gave away the secret of my existance to you?
Me: Slashdot.
Elbot: That explains all these geeks who have been visiting me.
I don't think they were necessarily trying to fool anyone....it's such a bad job that it's on the level of drawing a mustache on your "enemy's" picture during class president elections in high-school. Childish and stupid.
Unless I missed something, nobody's being sued for $250k. The maximum fine for what this kid is accused of doing is $250k. That doesn't go to Palin, it goes to the government.
If the person that broke into your account were to get caught they could be subjected to the same fine, and you still wouldn't get a dime.
Oh, and as far as wishing you could sue for $250k, go right ahead, sue whomever you like for whatever amount you like. If you can convince a judge and jury that it's justified, you may just win. I wouldn't start spending it just yet though.....
Wouldn't that be kinda like firing torpedos at the Titanic just to make sure it stays sunk?
I dunno, but it'll probably do less damage than the cheap wine mommy's about to swill once she's done "aging" it......
Well, since both names came up, how about a Neal Gaiman/Terry Pratchett collaboration....As pointed out in this thread, Gaiman has his ties to HHGTTG (as the gp mentions), Pratchet really is a great fit, and they did a great job on Good Omens together.
Is that you Condi? Y'know, Slashdot is free, you don't have to post A.C.....
Some maybe, but it seems that most of the people I talk to really want internet access, and maybe something like Office for the most part. Next comes music and the ability to play movies. Windows, OSX and Linux all offer these (assuming you don't mind substituting Open Office for Office on Linux). The other theme I run into over and over again is Windows boxes crapped up with spyware/viruses or just weirdly botched up, which I don't see very often with the OSX and Linux machines.
No, it's the origin of the universe we inhabit, not necessarily the origin of *everything*. We don't know where it came from, or what caused it, but that doesn't mean that science just says, "Well, we don't know where it came from, so nothing can possibly have preceeded it". Maybe someday we will, but right there is the difference between science and religion. In science, you can say "I don't know yet", in religion, you fall back to "Because God willed it". Big difference.
The same thing that would happen if someone went through and pasted nudie pix onto the covers of plain paper copies of Esquire. Eventually someone working at the store would notice, and they'd have the option to either pay for the vandalized copies or talk to the friendly local police officer.
It's not like these things are on a wireless network, it'd still require someone setting up shop to change the covers, which may or may not be obvious at first, eventually somebody would probably notice as they went from copy to copy hooking it up to a laptop or cutting the covers open to make changes....
No, I'd say it's meant to be a joke (I don't think anyone would use the phrases I bolded, especially the spelling of 'terror'), but I liked the second AC's response anyway.....
In all fairness, I don't think I've seen any articles about similar issues in the US or UK where people don't make jokes about them as well. I'm no fan of the blind (and uncreative) anti-France jokes, but the others tend to be either gallows humour shared between prisoners waiting on line together for their turn at the noose or comments that would apply to any government that institutes a database like this. In this case, that it's France is only incidental to the point of some of the jokes.
Then again, maybe the protesters didn't either. From the Star Tribune article:
The alleged urine, Nestor maintained, was actually three buckets, two of which contained dirty water used to flush toilets while conserving water. The third was seized from an illegal apartment occupied by someone not connected to the RNC protests. There was no bathroom in the illegal apartment and urine was collected in a bucket, Nestor said.
I wonder if the thinking is that the protesters were going to use them the way flashmobs have in N.Y.C..
Improve Everywhere does a thing with MP3s where everyone downloads an mp3, and at a predetermined time starts playing it to get instructions on what to do. I suppose that could be used as a strategy to get instructions out to be followed at certain times while guaranteeing that there are no radio transmissions for the police to overhear.
I'm not saying this justifies taking the MP3 players, but it might make a little more sense as to why they were targeting them.