FTA: Microsoft says Windows users should "take care not to visit unfamiliar or untrusted Web sites that could potentially host the malicious code"...
Sure I could guess but which ones exactly would those be?
RICO was ostensibly passed to help prosecutors go after mobsters.
Of course politicans always tell the whole truth...
Mafia organizations were set up so that the guys running them could avoid personal responsibility for the corrupt actiosn of the organization itself, so prosectutors ended up always going after low-level guys, which wasn't right and wasn't productive.
Hardly a situation unique to the Mafia.
So they got RICO which would let them bust the top guys, even if the top guys were not directly involved in the corruption. Prosecutors would just have to show that the organization itself is corrupt.
Yet this didn't happen with Enron and isn't happening with SCO or Microsoft.
But now RICO gets used and abused for many other things.
Just as significent dosn't get used in situations where it appears more applicable.
It is used to go after political groups (anti-abortion groups is one case I'm aware of).
In the case of anti-abortion (and "animal rights") groups anti-terrorism legislation may be more applicable. But this is another type of law where the application appears to depend more on political whim than the actual case.
And, much as I despise the nuclear option, lets not forget that both the UK and France do have it. Put 10 capital ships together, point them at the UK, and watch a single Trident missile flatten them.
How many non nuclear armed countries can put together such a fleet?
I believe the biggest problem banks have is ordinary robberies. I can't say I've heard of any situation of someone using someone else's identity to wipe out their bank account.
That would be something like "phantom" ATM withdrawls. Which are most likely to be the result of criminals working for the bank...
So it isn't any use in finding those that there is a high resolution photograph of without the 2d pattern projected on them to generate the 3d surface. This is only useful for proving that someone is carrying their own valid document, not for picking known criminals out of crowds.
Even if the "known criminals" have been previously arrested and had the procedure carried out (along with "mug shots", finger prints, DNA samples, etc) the article says nothing about the effectivness against people intentionally changing their appearance. There is also the problem that even if the person's face matches with their documents that does not in itself prove the documents are genuine.
We start into the project. Frank now has to go onsite, with no internet access for 3 weeks. He takes his notes document off of sharepoint and saves it locally (this is what requires V3).
I'm kind of curious where Frank could be going which has "no internet access", but does have electricity suitable for powering a computer. The only kind of place which springs to mind is a village in the middle of a poor third world country. Which probably wouldn't have much need for the whatever in the first place.
You could always use the "meeting" system, using the "talking" communications protocol. Suppliment this by the "go over and chat" concept using "voice over voice" chat.
There are also all sorts of telecommunications systems developed over the last couple of centuries. Many of which simply require everyone involved to understand the same langauge.
This is a big advantage. IMHO this is what OOo should be focusing on more. Anyhow, the point shouldn't be which one is faster, but the features/price factor. OOo wins big on this one and alot of people could just switch over without missing any features at all.
Maybe what's needed is something which works like Firefox and Thunderbird. Where all the bits typically needed by a tiny minority are extensions.
The problem I think with OOo adoption is more that it is competing with Office pirated edition more than it is competing with legal copies of Office. If Office comes preloaded, sadly, little will take the time to switch over...
Actually, it is common for someone to be in a fire, and underestimate the danger becasue some of the chemicals in the air make it so you can not smell the smoke.
In many fires smoke poisoning is the biggest contributor to death and injury.
Perhaps the larger problem is that corporations are aritficial persons in the view of the law, with the full protections of the 14th amendment. They are legally persons, yet are bereft of internal moral codes and common senses. They have far more defacto rights that any human being could hope to have. They have never nor can ever shed blod for their country, and have no vested interest in the welfare of the society that lets them exist.
Nor can they be held in prisons. A real person even simply accused of a crime may be held in custody, subject to bail conditions or otherwise prevented from getting on with their life. Whereas a "corporate person" can carry on "business as usual" just paying some lawyers, even through several appeals processes.
Or, go ahead and treat them just like a person. Next time one is one trial, give the corporate entity a psycological evaluation and see if they are fit to stand trial. Also see if, lacking any of the mental abilities that enable a person to be a positive member of society such as a sense of right and wrong or the intrinsic value of life, see if a guardian needs to be appointed to handle their affairs, just like any dangerously mentally ill psycotic person, including the capacity to enter into a contract.
I'm getting sick of this fallacy. Corporations are legally bound to act in accordance to their charter, which can say just about anything. Some corporations act for profit. Some don't. Some act ethically. Some don't.
The other concept is that of "limited liability" which appears to have gone from meaning that investers wern't liable for the debts of such a corporation. (Their liability being limited to the money they had put in.) To meaning that the corporation (and it's executive) is not liable for the consequences of its own actions.
Just like there's no cost whatsoever to copying a file (other than media and bandwidth).
Which is typically paid for by the person doing the copying.
All the cost is incurred up front, just once: in the act of recording a song, producing a movie, etc. But if someone decides to perform that act for no charge--perhaps in the vain hope that someone will come along later and give them money for a copy they could easily make for free--then that's their problem, not ours, and their lack of a sound business model doesn't entitle them to limit our freedom of speech by telling us what information we can or can't distribute to others.
It's also a bit much when companies who might have found this a viable business model in the past demand that everyone else cripple their machines to try and make those business models viable again. Especially when such crippling means that the machines might not be able to perform tasks which don't even relate to these business models properly. Even more so when those minority of companies making most noise are still making huge amounts of money. So obviously have plenty of spare cash to spend on trying new things. There really is something rather obscene when companies with high profit margins are demanding that those with much lower profit margins change how they do things...
That doesn't mean or imply that the problem isn't real and doesn't exist. And the problems listed by the grandparent are only a very small few of the number of problems with copyrights that extend over long periods of time. 15 years is a reasonable maximum value, and even that is probably excessive.
Especially given the stated purpose of copyrights in the US Consitution.
The more significant problem with the current system is that we are in danger of losing our cultural history. Essentially ALL of it, because public domain works are being suppressed in the name of profit for copyright holders, and recording media don't last forever. Paper is among the most durable, and that's fragile.
With current copyright terms it's virtually impossible for copyright libraries to perform their original task of ensuring that even commercial failures made it into the public domain. Not only are copyright terms likely to be longer than the life of the media the concept of "life plus X" means it is virtually impossible to know when the "clock" even starts in the case of anyone except the most famous. Something like "3,650 days from first publication" means that anything can easily be labled and catalogued as to when it will become public domain. Maybe even insist that publishers mark their works as "Public domain after 22 March 2016" rather than "copyright 2006"...
This, I think, is a bad example. In CA, the pot didn't leave CA, so it wasn't an interstate issue. I think the court overstepped in that decision.
The US Federal Government came up with a creative way of defining "interstate commerce" some time in the last century which effectivly allows them to poke their fingers anywhere they feel like in the US.
This is the saddest thing about our so-called "Checks and Balances". The vast majority of the time, the judicial branch is completely left out of the loop until someone is hurt by a law.
Or even specifically choose to leave themselves out of the loop.
How would you like it if you were told that the police were going to plant a live timebomb in your neighborhood to practice disarming bombs, and when you went to complain, you were told that you couldn't do anything about it until after they blew up your house.
By which time you might not be capable of doing much in the way of complaining.
The worst laws are exactly like this, waiting to blow up on some unsuspecting person.
Bad laws, together with bad enforcement, create "legal minefields".
If you ARE suspecting, tough shit. You still can't do anything about it until it blows up on you.
A bomb only goes bang once. It's possible for a lawsuit or prosecution to be dragged out with the aim of exhausting the defendant's ability to fight.
If "you" drive to "Big City" and buy adult material, where it is legal, then bring it to "small town" where it's illegal, why would the bookstore be liable? "You" carried out the action.
It certainly shouldn't be possible for the "you" to be travelling to the "small town" simply for the reason of trying to prosecute the bookstore. Which appears to be the kind of think the US Government has been up to.
(and if your "surfing the web" then you aren't strictly "minding your own business", your looking around in public places.)
Which could be anywhere, effectivly you are teleporting to places all over the planet. Even if they speak your language and accept your currency that does not mean that they part of your "community".
Sounds to me like your saying "your" community gets to set the standards for all communities or why bother.
As soon as another "community" thinks the same way expect to find yourself in the middle of a WAR.
May I suggest building a great (fire?)wall around yourselves and leave the rest of us out of it.
Because if you drag everyone else into your war you are unlikely to win.
Dada is suggesting that the smut peddler isn't responsible for adhering to Salt Lake City's community standards because he's not doing any business there. All the business takes place in LA where he is charging your credit card..Now if you choose to bring smut from LA to Salt Lake City the community standards are your problem.
Where as currently the person performing the importing appears to get away with it, especially if their intention is entrapment.
Could you point out where in the Constitution an exception is made for obsecne speech? The fact is the 1st Ammendment says "freedom of speech", and using the word "obscenity" to describe a particular kind of speech does not, by itself, create an exception.
In actual fact "obscene" (along with "unpopular" and "politically incorrect") speach (and speakers) tend to be those which actually need protection. People just don't tend to try and censor speach they agree with.
That said, I'm well aware and approving of some limits on speech. Yet these are exceptions we accept, not inherent exceptions in the 1st Ammendment, as there are none. The cliche yelling fire in a theatre,
Unless there actually is a fire or slander, for example. However these both have real negative impacts on people. Obscenity laws do nothing but protect people from being offended.
Not that being offended is necessarily a bad thing in the first place.
If you are illegally in this country, you should NOT be given a driver's license.
Or even simpler go back to basics and treat the document simply as a "machine operator's permit". Simply as proof that you have passed a test of competence to drive a motor vehicle on public roads, NOTHING ELSE.
What the plaintiff was objecting to, as I read the article (I didn't hunt down the Circuit Court's decision and read that too; obviously the article could be wrong) was the federal government trying obscenity cases in conservative communities because they're more likely to win on the "community standards" guidelines.
With or without the material in question actually having been sold there? It's a bit like a contract which states "this is subject to the laws of X" where none of the parties involved are actually in X.
This is absolutely unfair, and undoubtedly a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. If a state wants to ban certain publications and bring charges against people who publish them and/or sell them within that state, that's fine.
It certainly says something if that state government is doing nothing whilst federal government is attempting to do so. i.e. cause for a rational judge to find the "feds" in contempt of court.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, whenever MS does release a patch, there's a fair chance the patch itself is exploitable or opens another exploit.
Or will just plain break something...
FTA: Microsoft says Windows users should "take care not to visit unfamiliar or untrusted Web sites that could potentially host the malicious code"...
:)
Sure I could guess but which ones exactly would those be?
Wonder if *.microsoft.com is on that list
As in, I am confused as to why this member of our movement murdered a doctor.
Because your "cause" gave them a good excuse to do so.
We were just protesting women seeking medical care. It's not like our movement advocated the murder of doctors or anything.
Then maybe your group needs to check out your members a little more closely...
RICO was ostensibly passed to help prosecutors go after mobsters.
Of course politicans always tell the whole truth...
Mafia organizations were set up so that the guys running them could avoid personal responsibility for the corrupt actiosn of the organization itself, so prosectutors ended up always going after low-level guys, which wasn't right and wasn't productive.
Hardly a situation unique to the Mafia.
So they got RICO which would let them bust the top guys, even if the top guys were not directly involved in the corruption. Prosecutors would just have to show that the organization itself is corrupt.
Yet this didn't happen with Enron and isn't happening with SCO or Microsoft.
But now RICO gets used and abused for many other things.
Just as significent dosn't get used in situations where it appears more applicable.
It is used to go after political groups (anti-abortion groups is one case I'm aware of).
In the case of anti-abortion (and "animal rights") groups anti-terrorism legislation may be more applicable. But this is another type of law where the application appears to depend more on political whim than the actual case.
And, much as I despise the nuclear option, lets not forget that both the UK and France do have it. Put 10 capital ships together, point them at the UK, and watch a single Trident missile flatten them.
How many non nuclear armed countries can put together such a fleet?
I believe the biggest problem banks have is ordinary robberies. I can't say I've heard of any situation of someone using someone else's identity to wipe out their bank account.
That would be something like "phantom" ATM withdrawls. Which are most likely to be the result of criminals working for the bank...
So it isn't any use in finding those that there is a high resolution photograph of without the 2d pattern projected on them to generate the 3d surface. This is only useful for proving that someone is carrying their own valid document, not for picking known criminals out of crowds.
Even if the "known criminals" have been previously arrested and had the procedure carried out (along with "mug shots", finger prints, DNA samples, etc) the article says nothing about the effectivness against people intentionally changing their appearance. There is also the problem that even if the person's face matches with their documents that does not in itself prove the documents are genuine.
From a business point of view, upgrades are a really bad thing. You have to pay again for something already bought, and you have to retrain.
You also have the cost of performing the upgrade and dealing with anything which it breaks in the the process.
We start into the project. Frank now has to go onsite, with no internet access for 3 weeks. He takes his notes document off of sharepoint and saves it locally (this is what requires V3).
I'm kind of curious where Frank could be going which has "no internet access", but does have electricity suitable for powering a computer.
The only kind of place which springs to mind is a village in the middle of a poor third world country. Which probably wouldn't have much need for the whatever in the first place.
You could always use the "meeting" system, using the "talking" communications protocol. Suppliment this by the "go over and chat" concept using "voice over voice" chat.
There are also all sorts of telecommunications systems developed over the last couple of centuries. Many of which simply require everyone involved to understand the same langauge.
This is a big advantage. IMHO this is what OOo should be focusing on more. Anyhow, the point shouldn't be which one is faster, but the features/price factor. OOo wins big on this one and alot of people could just switch over without missing any features at all.
Maybe what's needed is something which works like Firefox and Thunderbird. Where all the bits typically needed by a tiny minority are extensions.
The problem I think with OOo adoption is more that it is competing with Office pirated edition more than it is competing with legal copies of Office. If Office comes preloaded, sadly, little will take the time to switch over...
Unless they need to read OOo/ODF files.
A wet towel or a fire blanket will do the job with a grease fire ... biggest mistakes are a) water b) trying to take the burning pan outside.
A fire extinguisher may not be the best idea though. Directing a pressurised jet of anything directly at a burning liquid can make things worst.
Actually, it is common for someone to be in a fire, and underestimate the danger becasue some of the chemicals in the air make it so you can not smell the smoke.
In many fires smoke poisoning is the biggest contributor to death and injury.
Perhaps the larger problem is that corporations are aritficial persons in the view of the law, with the full protections of the 14th amendment. They are legally persons, yet are bereft of internal moral codes and common senses. They have far more defacto rights that any human being could hope to have. They have never nor can ever shed blod for their country, and have no vested interest in the welfare of the society that lets them exist.
Nor can they be held in prisons. A real person even simply accused of a crime may be held in custody, subject to bail conditions or otherwise prevented from getting on with their life. Whereas a "corporate person" can carry on "business as usual" just paying some lawyers, even through several appeals processes.
Or, go ahead and treat them just like a person. Next time one is one trial, give the corporate entity a psycological evaluation and see if they are fit to stand trial. Also see if, lacking any of the mental abilities that enable a person to be a positive member of society such as a sense of right and wrong or the intrinsic value of life, see if a guardian needs to be appointed to handle their affairs, just like any dangerously mentally ill psycotic person, including the capacity to enter into a contract.
Or even locked up for reasons of public safety.
I'm getting sick of this fallacy. Corporations are legally bound to act in accordance to their charter, which can say just about anything. Some corporations act for profit. Some don't. Some act ethically. Some don't.
The other concept is that of "limited liability" which appears to have gone from meaning that investers wern't liable for the debts of such a corporation. (Their liability being limited to the money they had put in.) To meaning that the corporation (and it's executive) is not liable for the consequences of its own actions.
Just like there's no cost whatsoever to copying a file (other than media and bandwidth).
Which is typically paid for by the person doing the copying.
All the cost is incurred up front, just once: in the act of recording a song, producing a movie, etc. But if someone decides to perform that act for no charge--perhaps in the vain hope that someone will come along later and give them money for a copy they could easily make for free--then that's their problem, not ours, and their lack of a sound business model doesn't entitle them to limit our freedom of speech by telling us what information we can or can't distribute to others.
It's also a bit much when companies who might have found this a viable business model in the past demand that everyone else cripple their machines to try and make those business models viable again. Especially when such crippling means that the machines might not be able to perform tasks which don't even relate to these business models properly. Even more so when those minority of companies making most noise are still making huge amounts of money. So obviously have plenty of spare cash to spend on trying new things.
There really is something rather obscene when companies with high profit margins are demanding that those with much lower profit margins change how they do things...
That doesn't mean or imply that the problem isn't real and doesn't exist. And the problems listed by the grandparent are only a very small few of the number of problems with copyrights that extend over long periods of time. 15 years is a reasonable maximum value, and even that is probably excessive.
Especially given the stated purpose of copyrights in the US Consitution.
The more significant problem with the current system is that we are in danger of losing our cultural history. Essentially ALL of it, because public domain works are being suppressed in the name of profit for copyright holders, and recording media don't last forever. Paper is among the most durable, and that's fragile.
With current copyright terms it's virtually impossible for copyright libraries to perform their original task of ensuring that even commercial failures made it into the public domain. Not only are copyright terms likely to be longer than the life of the media the concept of "life plus X" means it is virtually impossible to know when the "clock" even starts in the case of anyone except the most famous.
Something like "3,650 days from first publication" means that anything can easily be labled and catalogued as to when it will become public domain. Maybe even insist that publishers mark their works as "Public domain after 22 March 2016" rather than "copyright 2006"...
This, I think, is a bad example. In CA, the pot didn't leave CA, so it wasn't an interstate issue. I think the court overstepped in that decision.
The US Federal Government came up with a creative way of defining "interstate commerce" some time in the last century which effectivly allows them to poke their fingers anywhere they feel like in the US.
This is the saddest thing about our so-called "Checks and Balances". The vast majority of the time, the judicial branch is completely left out of the loop until someone is hurt by a law.
Or even specifically choose to leave themselves out of the loop.
How would you like it if you were told that the police were going to plant a live timebomb in your neighborhood to practice disarming bombs, and when you went to complain, you were told that you couldn't do anything about it until after they blew up your house.
By which time you might not be capable of doing much in the way of complaining.
The worst laws are exactly like this, waiting to blow up on some unsuspecting person.
Bad laws, together with bad enforcement, create "legal minefields".
If you ARE suspecting, tough shit. You still can't do anything about it until it blows up on you.
A bomb only goes bang once. It's possible for a lawsuit or prosecution to be dragged out with the aim of exhausting the defendant's ability to fight.
If "you" drive to "Big City" and buy adult material, where it is legal, then bring it to "small town" where it's illegal, why would the bookstore be liable? "You" carried out the action.
It certainly shouldn't be possible for the "you" to be travelling to the "small town" simply for the reason of trying to prosecute the bookstore. Which appears to be the kind of think the US Government has been up to.
(and if your "surfing the web" then you aren't strictly "minding your own business", your looking around in public places.)
Which could be anywhere, effectivly you are teleporting to places all over the planet. Even if they speak your language and accept your currency that does not mean that they part of your "community".
Sounds to me like your saying "your" community gets to set the standards for all communities or why bother.
As soon as another "community" thinks the same way expect to find yourself in the middle of a WAR.
May I suggest building a great (fire?)wall around yourselves and leave the rest of us out of it.
Because if you drag everyone else into your war you are unlikely to win.
Dada is suggesting that the smut peddler isn't responsible for adhering to Salt Lake City's community standards because he's not doing any business there. All the business takes place in LA where he is charging your credit card..Now if you choose to bring smut from LA to Salt Lake City the community standards are your problem.
Where as currently the person performing the importing appears to get away with it, especially if their intention is entrapment.
Could you point out where in the Constitution an exception is made for obsecne speech? The fact is the 1st Ammendment says "freedom of speech", and using the word "obscenity" to describe a particular kind of speech does not, by itself, create an exception.
In actual fact "obscene" (along with "unpopular" and "politically incorrect") speach (and speakers) tend to be those which actually need protection. People just don't tend to try and censor speach they agree with.
That said, I'm well aware and approving of some limits on speech. Yet these are exceptions we accept, not inherent exceptions in the 1st Ammendment, as there are none. The cliche yelling fire in a theatre,
Unless there actually is a fire or slander, for example. However these both have real negative impacts on people. Obscenity laws do nothing but protect people from being offended.
Not that being offended is necessarily a bad thing in the first place.
If you are illegally in this country, you should NOT be given a driver's license.
Or even simpler go back to basics and treat the document simply as a "machine operator's permit". Simply as proof that you have passed a test of competence to drive a motor vehicle on public roads, NOTHING ELSE.
What the plaintiff was objecting to, as I read the article (I didn't hunt down the Circuit Court's decision and read that too; obviously the article could be wrong) was the federal government trying obscenity cases in conservative communities because they're more likely to win on the "community standards" guidelines.
With or without the material in question actually having been sold there? It's a bit like a contract which states "this is subject to the laws of X" where none of the parties involved are actually in X.
This is absolutely unfair, and undoubtedly a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. If a state wants to ban certain publications and bring charges against people who publish them and/or sell them within that state, that's fine.
It certainly says something if that state government is doing nothing whilst federal government is attempting to do so. i.e. cause for a rational judge to find the "feds" in contempt of court.
Then why aren't gun licenses treated the same way? A Texas CC carry permit isn't valid in all other states.
Probably because the US Constitution dosn't, unambiguiously, state that it should.