Okay, to be honest, most of the pix I found did indeed show the back of the vehicles. And in those cases, I agree with you. They should have to have a clear view of the driver to be admissible.
The only acceptable way to 'show it was not you driving' is to identify the driver for them.
Have you ever tried a sworn affidavit saying you were NOT the driver?
(Which given the vantage point and quality of the photos is a dubious proposition.)
You should know who was driving your car on the given day and time. If not, think of the ticket as a penalty for being dumb.
And secondly it amounts to a system of "guilty by default", where YOU get nailed unless YOU can find the real crook.
You don't have to "find" anybody. Just tell the cops who borrowed your car that day.
Look at it this way- if a gun registered in your name was used to kill someone, don't you think the cops would arrest you? They have evidence you were involved. If you can prove you sold the gun to someone else, they'll let you go and arrest that person instead. Same thing: it's your car, it's reasonable to assume you are driving it. If you were not driving it, it's reasonable to assume you know who was.
I think the RIAAs point is that whoever runs that router (and, presumably, the network connection) is responsible for the traffic it passes. That's their theory. To the best of my knowledge, no court has ever bought it.
I'm curious who YOU would hold responsible for the traffic coming out of YOUR router, which is hooked to YOUR broadband line in YOUR house. The Tooth Fairy?
I'm not sure what makes Starbucks (for instance) not liable if a wifi customer downloads kiddy porn, but a person who owns an open WAP gets their PCs confiscated by the cops. The person is, reasonably, a suspect.
Why is the manager of the Starbucks not a suspect? Or the employees?? They have physical control over the network- they can plug/unplug the equipment, just like I can plug/unplug MY Access Point. Why not an employee at the ISP that provides their WiFi? They have 'logical' control over the equipment- they can re-configure it, change settings, just like I can with mine.
I have a WAP. They have a WAP. I let people connect to my WAP. They let people connect to their WAP. If something illegal happens over my network connection, *I* get arrested. If something illegal happens over their network connection, they don't.
If the sensors in the road determine that a car has entered the intersection during a red light, it takes a picture. Then that picture is looked at, and obvious exceptions (Police cars, ambulances, fire engines, etc) are thrown out. Then the license plates are captured off the remaining photos, and the address of the car owner looked up. The ticket is printed, and mailed to that address.
I don't know about that- a PICTURE of a car running a red light is pretty good evidence that the crime actually took place. Which means someone is guilty of comitting that crime. Since they cannot I.D. the driver (Facial recognition's not that good. Yet.), but they CAN I.D. the car (thru the plates), they send the notification to the registered owner of the car. Since the drive should know who was driving their car*, the driver can then tell the court who is actually guilty.
I think the RIAAs point is that whoever runs that router (and, presumably, the network connection) is responsible for the traffic it passes.
Like a Red-light camera: they send the ticket to the owner of the car, not necessarily the driver. (Of course, in that case, the owner can simply prove it was not them, and provide the name of the driver, and the ticket will be re-assigned.)
I don't necessarily agree with this, but most ISP's have similar clauses in their TOS: You are responsible for whatever your equipment puts out/takes in over the network connection. I'm not sure what makes Starbucks (for instance) not liable if a wifi customer downloads kiddy porn, but a person who owns an open WAP gets their PCs confiscated by the cops. But I wish the 'immunity' applied to anyone.
Let's see a slightly larger selection of quotes...
several people began pelting Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers with rocks, bottles, and other debris... the LAPD had approximately 600 officers on the scene... police fired 146 foam-rubber projectiles... 27 marchers and 9 members of the media were injured,... Video footage shows police striking with their batons at apparently non-combative protesters... many reporters were also pushed and beaten... Police Chief William J. Bratton... state[d] that "the vast majority of people who were [at MacArthur Park] were behaving appropriately."
So, we have the cops, who heavily outnumber the "several" violent protesters, firing about 150 times at the crowd, injuring almost 40 people. They pushed and beat reporters and other non-combative protesters. The police Chief himself said most of the people there were not misbehaving.
I think that goes a little beyond 'being jackasses'.
And, often, their wives and kids have to eat, too.
Politically Correct or not, it's still true that in most families, the man is the primary breadwinner. The wife MAY have a job, but it's secondary, often part time. She can 'affrd' to quit if she doesn't like the job. HE hubby will support the family until she finds another one. But HE is forced to keep his job, otherwise his kids will starve. Therefore, women tend to take jobs they like, while men tend to take jobs they pay more. (Which is why 90%+ of dangerous jobs are held by men- the more dangerous the job, the more it generally pays.)
the police know someone's going to try to assassinate his wife, so they setup a sting and put a dummy in a car and the perp shoots the dummy, not knowing it wasn't her. By your...unique and...special way of thinking no crime was commited,
Lots of crimes may have been committed. Firing a gun within the city limits, illegal posession of a gun, destruction of property (if the bullet damages the dummy/car), etc.
But the one crime that has NOT been committed is murder.
The wife was never in danger.
True. She wasn't there.
Besides, your whole scenario has a fatal flaw: the wife is real. The 'child' who is supposedly in danger of being molested IS NOT REAL. A person who does not exist cannot, by definition, be in danger.
I think that when people use the 'too bad you didn't have a gun' argument, they ASSUME that the person would be trained in the proper use thereof. It's an unstated assumption.
The guy then forced the girl into a nearby bush out of sight of the cameras but got spooked by the police sirens and ran off before he could do anything.
See, that's the problem with cameras- he could EASILY have 'done something' (like slit her throat, or less violently, steal her purse) before the cops got there. If there was an ACTUAL COP on that street, instead of just a camera, then it's doubtful he would have done anything to begin with.
What difference does a camera make to your privacy when you're standing on the street in broad daylight with everyone already watching you?
People don't have photographic memories. Cameras do. People do not share with each other everything theysee. Camera do. Peoples memories cannot be data-mined years later, video recordings can.
THAT'S the difference between being seen, and being recorded. And don't even try to point out these cameras are not recorded. They are, or can easily be.
saw a TV show where the new speaking CCTV cameras interrupted some guy getting the shit kicked out of him.
Firstly, I saw a TV show about the crew of a Starship who met up with (and kicked the ass of )aliens almost every week. The point? TV ain't necessarily real.
2) It "interrupted" an assault. It did NOT 'Prevent' the assault. A cop ON THE SCENE (as opposed to 20 miles away, snacking on donuts, watching a monitor) might very well have prevented the assault inthe first place.
The camera operator simply followed him from one camera to the next,...which was only possible because the perp was too stupid to go somewhere the cameras couldn't see. Alleys, parks, parking garages, malls, stores, etc. for instance. Yes, some of those have their own surveillance, but the cops don't have access to that (yet). Duck into a store, out the back door (setting off the alarm, who cares), down the alley, and back onto the street a block away. Combine with a quick change of clothes (even just removing/reversing your jacket), and you could lose the surveillance easily.
The cries of "1984! 1984!" are woefully inaccurate, as these cameras are not in our homes,
Yet.
but in our streets, a place the police are 100% free to go.
I have no problem with a cop seeing me when I am in public. I have no problem with a camera seeing me when I'm in public. The difference is, the camera can EASILY (and worse, secretly) be hooked up to a recorder, and the video can be kept effectively forever. It can be searched YEARS later. It can be data-mined. I could face questioning days/weeks/months/years later as to why I deviated from my usual route to work, on the same day a child was kidnapped. If I wanted to run for office, my opponent could get embarassing footage of me picking my nose. If I make myself an enemy of those in power (maybe by protesting the now-pervasive surveillance, or exposing police corruption), I could be 'followed' by the cops thru the camera, and ticketed for every minor infraction (jaywalking, littering, loitering, etc).
I'm not sure what's up with you people, it's not difficult to comprehend.
Back atcha.
attempt to solicit what he thought was a minor (emphasis added)
What he THOUGHT is of no concern, unless you want to live in a 1984-like world where you can be arrested for ThoughtCrimes.
The perp intended to have sex with a minor,
And if I have the opportunity*, I intend to steal a million dollars. Shall they arrest me right now??
* Said opportunity means I'm walking alone at night thru an abandoned area of the city, when I hear gunshots ring out just around a corner I'm turning. As I clear the corner, I see two men fall to the ground dead, each having just shot the other. I see a briefcase of drugs and a briefcase of cash lying there. I grab the cash and run.
Try : "If I have a gun and say I'm going to kill your (non-existant) sister..." You see, if you have no sister, then there is no one in danger of being killed. No one in danger of being killed mean no murder accusation.
After all, you were never in danger, right?
A non-existant person can not be in danger, either of being murdered, of of being molested.
60 people get up and shoot at him, miss, and the plane explodes
You see, I don't think this would happen. One of the basic rules of gun shooting is to know your backdrop. In other words 'If I miss my target, what might the bullet hit instead?'
Will there be idiots who blaze away regardless? Probabaly. But they'll learn their lesson when the plane crashes, or when the cooler-headed survivers tell the press what idiots they were after the plane safely lands.
...lawyers told Blizzard that they can't be using their network (state run/taxpayer supported) to offset their bandwidth costs. (School's AUP said you can't use the network for any commercial purposes
I didn't know that Blizzard was a student at the school, and therefore bound by their AUP.
You haven't eliminated "more abiding" or "equally abiding" with any sort of facts or other evidence. All three remain possible.
YOU said you were not going to argue they were "more abiding". I practically eliminated 'equally' with my argument (see the above mentioned post), so that only leaves 'Less abiding'.
what you're meaning to say is that people who do drugs, IN YOUR OPINION, are less law abiding.
I can't be bothered to look up the statistics....
Oh, what the hell. I googled 'drug use USA' and 'drug use crime', and came up with some stats.
"Rates of current use of illicit drugs were higher for young adults aged 18 to 25 (20.1 percent) than for youths aged 12 to 17 and adults aged 26 or older,"
"In the 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 32% of State prisoners and 26% of Federal prisoners said they had committed their current offense while under the influence of drugs. "
SO, the highest drug use rate is about 20%, and the rate of criminals who use drugs is 26% - 32%
Sounds like people who use drugs are LESS law-abiding.
I'm sure you'll continue to nit-pick those numbers, etc. Correlation =/= causation. Whatever. I'm done.
Nope. Just quoting you. First you said you were NOT going to argue that druggies are MORE law abiding. Later you said it was possible they WERE more law abiding. Make up your mind- are your going to use that argument or not??
All three states are possible
But each person must fall into one of those three states. You said you weren't going to argue they were More law abiding, leaving only 'equally abiding' and 'less abiding'. Of those, 'equally abiding' is unlikely, because (as I pointed out) drugs change how you act. So, the only thing left is 'less abiding'. Then, once I pointed this out, you reversed you decision to not argue they could be 'more abiding'.
I'm saying that none of these statements are true:
How about these? 1. "People who use drugs are generally more law abiding"; 2. "People who use drugs are generally less law abiding"; 3. "People who use drugs are as law abiding as the general population".
The upshot is that you can't even trust a compiler you wrote yourself if it was compiled to binary by someone elses compiler.
The problem to that situation is that the person who coded the compiler you use to compile your compiler would have to know when they coded it that you would eventually use it to compile your compiler, and would need to know how your compiler was coded (again, long before you actually coded it) in order to back-door their compiler to back-door your compiler to back-door your code.
Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Sure it does, because it IS ridiculous. And if you're still worried about it, write your own damn compiler from scratch.
Sheesh.
Your assertion that all code behavior can be discerned from a review of the source is incorrect.
Code is instructions. The computer follows those instructions. A human can also follow those instructions.
10 Print "hello" 20 end
There- I can easily see that this code wil print the word 'hello' and then end. I can compile the code (or run it thru an interperator) and see the results are... the printed word 'hello', and the program ending.
Again, we are NOT talking about huge, complex programs here. We're talking about code that asks "Candidate 'A' or Candidate 'B'?" and adds one to the appropriate variable. That's IT.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, a photo or two of the back of the vehicle.
/ episode31.htm
http://www.pedestrians.org/episodes/details31to60
http://www.mrtraffic.com/lacieneg.jpg
Those don't look like the backs of cars to me.
Okay, to be honest, most of the pix I found did indeed show the back of the vehicles. And in those cases, I agree with you. They should have to have a clear view of the driver to be admissible.
The only acceptable way to 'show it was not you driving' is to identify the driver for them.
Have you ever tried a sworn affidavit saying you were NOT the driver?
(Which given the vantage point and quality of the photos is a dubious proposition.)
You should know who was driving your car on the given day and time. If not, think of the ticket as a penalty for being dumb.
And secondly it amounts to a system of "guilty by default", where YOU get nailed unless YOU can find the real crook.
You don't have to "find" anybody. Just tell the cops who borrowed your car that day.
Look at it this way- if a gun registered in your name was used to kill someone, don't you think the cops would arrest you? They have evidence you were involved. If you can prove you sold the gun to someone else, they'll let you go and arrest that person instead. Same thing: it's your car, it's reasonable to assume you are driving it. If you were not driving it, it's reasonable to assume you know who was.
I think the RIAAs point is that whoever runs that router (and, presumably, the network connection) is responsible for the traffic it passes.
That's their theory. To the best of my knowledge, no court has ever bought it.
I'm curious who YOU would hold responsible for the traffic coming out of YOUR router, which is hooked to YOUR broadband line in YOUR house. The Tooth Fairy?
I'm not sure what makes Starbucks (for instance) not liable if a wifi customer downloads kiddy porn, but a person who owns an open WAP gets their PCs confiscated by the cops.
The person is, reasonably, a suspect.
Why is the manager of the Starbucks not a suspect? Or the employees?? They have physical control over the network- they can plug/unplug the equipment, just like I can plug/unplug MY Access Point.
Why not an employee at the ISP that provides their WiFi? They have 'logical' control over the equipment- they can re-configure it, change settings, just like I can with mine.
I have a WAP. They have a WAP.
I let people connect to my WAP. They let people connect to their WAP.
If something illegal happens over my network connection, *I* get arrested. If something illegal happens over their network connection, they don't.
What I'm getting at is: Why?
Um, no.
If the sensors in the road determine that a car has entered the intersection during a red light, it takes a picture. Then that picture is looked at, and obvious exceptions (Police cars, ambulances, fire engines, etc) are thrown out. Then the license plates are captured off the remaining photos, and the address of the car owner looked up. The ticket is printed, and mailed to that address.
Don't they include the picture taken by the 'Red light cam'?? Can't you ID your own family members from a picture?
Holding the registered owner of the vehicle responsible for traffic infractions is efficient tax collection, but fundamentally unjust.
That's why, everywhere I've heard of, if you can show it was not you driving, they will go after the actual driver, and leave you alone.
I don't know about that- a PICTURE of a car running a red light is pretty good evidence that the crime actually took place. Which means someone is guilty of comitting that crime. Since they cannot I.D. the driver (Facial recognition's not that good. Yet.), but they CAN I.D. the car (thru the plates), they send the notification to the registered owner of the car. Since the drive should know who was driving their car*, the driver can then tell the court who is actually guilty.
*unless it was stolen.
I think the RIAAs point is that whoever runs that router (and, presumably, the network connection) is responsible for the traffic it passes.
Like a Red-light camera: they send the ticket to the owner of the car, not necessarily the driver. (Of course, in that case, the owner can simply prove it was not them, and provide the name of the driver, and the ticket will be re-assigned.)
I don't necessarily agree with this, but most ISP's have similar clauses in their TOS: You are responsible for whatever your equipment puts out/takes in over the network connection. I'm not sure what makes Starbucks (for instance) not liable if a wifi customer downloads kiddy porn, but a person who owns an open WAP gets their PCs confiscated by the cops. But I wish the 'immunity' applied to anyone.
Um, two-way mirror. As in, you can use it in two different ways.:
1) as a mirror
2) as a window that allows you to see thru it.
You can prove anything with selective quoting.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... state[d] that "the vast majority of people who were [at MacArthur Park] were behaving appropriately."
Let's see a slightly larger selection of quotes...
several people began pelting Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers with rocks, bottles, and other debris
the LAPD had approximately 600 officers on the scene
police fired 146 foam-rubber projectiles
27 marchers and 9 members of the media were injured,
Video footage shows police striking with their batons at apparently non-combative protesters
many reporters were also pushed and beaten
Police Chief William J. Bratton
So, we have the cops, who heavily outnumber the "several" violent protesters, firing about 150 times at the crowd, injuring almost 40 people. They pushed and beat reporters and other non-combative protesters. The police Chief himself said most of the people there were not misbehaving.
I think that goes a little beyond 'being jackasses'.
Who's against foreigners?
We're against ILLEGAL immigrants, which is not the same thing.
they have to eat.
And, often, their wives and kids have to eat, too.
Politically Correct or not, it's still true that in most families, the man is the primary breadwinner. The wife MAY have a job, but it's secondary, often part time. She can 'affrd' to quit if she doesn't like the job. HE hubby will support the family until she finds another one. But HE is forced to keep his job, otherwise his kids will starve. Therefore, women tend to take jobs they like, while men tend to take jobs they pay more. (Which is why 90%+ of dangerous jobs are held by men- the more dangerous the job, the more it generally pays.)
He attempted to have sex with a minor.
What minor?
the police know someone's going to try to assassinate his wife, so they setup a sting and put a dummy in a car and the perp shoots the dummy, not knowing it wasn't her. By your...unique and...special way of thinking no crime was commited,
Lots of crimes may have been committed. Firing a gun within the city limits, illegal posession of a gun, destruction of property (if the bullet damages the dummy/car), etc.
But the one crime that has NOT been committed is murder.
The wife was never in danger.
True. She wasn't there.
Besides, your whole scenario has a fatal flaw: the wife is real. The 'child' who is supposedly in danger of being molested IS NOT REAL. A person who does not exist cannot, by definition, be in danger.
It's a little fuzzy, ... It's not clear. ...Oh, it's someone else who has the bat
If it's so 'fuzzy' and 'not clear', then there is a good chance they'll simply I.D. YOU as the one with the bat.
Is there a potential for abuse? Sure. Know what the antidote is? More cameras.
The solution to 'too many cameras' is 'more cameras'?? Big Brother would LOVE you.
In a world where no-one gets much privacy suddenly the things people do "behind closed doors" aren't ammunition any more.
That's true by definition- if there is no privacy, there won't BE anything done 'behind closed doors' anymore.
Gay chief of police? That's nice.
Not if you're homophobic.
Woman who runs your dental surgery dresses up as a pony on weekends? Fair enough.
Not if you're for 'Family Values' and don't like that sort of thing.
Puritanism can't survive in the surveillance society.
But Hate, Intolerance and Bigotry can.
I think that when people use the 'too bad you didn't have a gun' argument, they ASSUME that the person would be trained in the proper use thereof. It's an unstated assumption.
The guy then forced the girl into a nearby bush out of sight of the cameras but got spooked by the police sirens and ran off before he could do anything.
See, that's the problem with cameras- he could EASILY have 'done something' (like slit her throat, or less violently, steal her purse) before the cops got there. If there was an ACTUAL COP on that street, instead of just a camera, then it's doubtful he would have done anything to begin with.
What difference does a camera make to your privacy when you're standing on the street in broad daylight with everyone already watching you?
People don't have photographic memories. Cameras do. People do not share with each other everything theysee. Camera do. Peoples memories cannot be data-mined years later, video recordings can.
THAT'S the difference between being seen, and being recorded. And don't even try to point out these cameras are not recorded. They are, or can easily be.
saw a TV show where the new speaking CCTV cameras interrupted some guy getting the shit kicked out of him.
...which was only possible because the perp was too stupid to go somewhere the cameras couldn't see. Alleys, parks, parking garages, malls, stores, etc. for instance. Yes, some of those have their own surveillance, but the cops don't have access to that (yet). Duck into a store, out the back door (setting off the alarm, who cares), down the alley, and back onto the street a block away. Combine with a quick change of clothes (even just removing/reversing your jacket), and you could lose the surveillance easily.
Firstly, I saw a TV show about the crew of a Starship who met up with (and kicked the ass of )aliens almost every week. The point? TV ain't necessarily real.
2) It "interrupted" an assault. It did NOT 'Prevent' the assault. A cop ON THE SCENE (as opposed to 20 miles away, snacking on donuts, watching a monitor) might very well have prevented the assault inthe first place.
The camera operator simply followed him from one camera to the next,
The cries of "1984! 1984!" are woefully inaccurate, as these cameras are not in our homes,
Yet.
but in our streets, a place the police are 100% free to go.
I have no problem with a cop seeing me when I am in public. I have no problem with a camera seeing me when I'm in public. The difference is, the camera can EASILY (and worse, secretly) be hooked up to a recorder, and the video can be kept effectively forever. It can be searched YEARS later. It can be data-mined. I could face questioning days/weeks/months/years later as to why I deviated from my usual route to work, on the same day a child was kidnapped. If I wanted to run for office, my opponent could get embarassing footage of me picking my nose. If I make myself an enemy of those in power (maybe by protesting the now-pervasive surveillance, or exposing police corruption), I could be 'followed' by the cops thru the camera, and ticketed for every minor infraction (jaywalking, littering, loitering, etc).
It's called attempted solicitation of a minor
The point is: there is NO minor.
I'm not sure what's up with you people, it's not difficult to comprehend.
Back atcha.
attempt to solicit what he thought was a minor (emphasis added)
What he THOUGHT is of no concern, unless you want to live in a 1984-like world where you can be arrested for ThoughtCrimes.
The perp intended to have sex with a minor,
And if I have the opportunity*, I intend to steal a million dollars. Shall they arrest me right now??
* Said opportunity means I'm walking alone at night thru an abandoned area of the city, when I hear gunshots ring out just around a corner I'm turning. As I clear the corner, I see two men fall to the ground dead, each having just shot the other. I see a briefcase of drugs and a briefcase of cash lying there. I grab the cash and run.
If I have a gun and say I'm going to kill you...
Wrong analogy.
Try : "If I have a gun and say I'm going to kill your (non-existant) sister..." You see, if you have no sister, then there is no one in danger of being killed. No one in danger of being killed mean no murder accusation.
After all, you were never in danger, right?
A non-existant person can not be in danger, either of being murdered, of of being molested.
60 people get up and shoot at him, miss, and the plane explodes
You see, I don't think this would happen. One of the basic rules of gun shooting is to know your backdrop. In other words 'If I miss my target, what might the bullet hit instead?'
Will there be idiots who blaze away regardless? Probabaly. But they'll learn their lesson when the plane crashes, or when the cooler-headed survivers tell the press what idiots they were after the plane safely lands.
...lawyers told Blizzard that they can't be using their network (state run/taxpayer supported) to offset their bandwidth costs. (School's AUP said you can't use the network for any commercial purposes
I didn't know that Blizzard was a student at the school, and therefore bound by their AUP.
You pointed this out when, exactly?
...
on Friday July 20, @02:12AM (#19923749)
You haven't eliminated "more abiding" or "equally abiding" with any sort of facts or other evidence. All three remain possible.
YOU said you were not going to argue they were "more abiding". I practically eliminated 'equally' with my argument (see the above mentioned post), so that only leaves 'Less abiding'.
what you're meaning to say is that people who do drugs, IN YOUR OPINION, are less law abiding.
I can't be bothered to look up the statistics.
Oh, what the hell. I googled 'drug use USA' and 'drug use crime', and came up with some stats.
"Rates of current use of illicit drugs were higher for young adults aged 18 to 25 (20.1 percent) than for youths aged 12 to 17 and adults aged 26 or older,"
"In the 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 32% of State prisoners and 26% of Federal prisoners said they had committed their current offense while under the influence of drugs. "
SO, the highest drug use rate is about 20%, and the rate of criminals who use drugs is 26% - 32%
Sounds like people who use drugs are LESS law-abiding.
I'm sure you'll continue to nit-pick those numbers, etc. Correlation =/= causation. Whatever. I'm done.
Botnets trying to reconnect to this ip?
Even if they are not bt, they might just as well be port scans.
Port scans from GOVERNMENT computers? Oh, okay, nothing to see here...
You're putting words in my mouth.
Nope. Just quoting you. First you said you were NOT going to argue that druggies are MORE law abiding. Later you said it was possible they WERE more law abiding. Make up your mind- are your going to use that argument or not??
All three states are possible
But each person must fall into one of those three states. You said you weren't going to argue they were More law abiding, leaving only 'equally abiding' and 'less abiding'. Of those, 'equally abiding' is unlikely, because (as I pointed out) drugs change how you act. So, the only thing left is 'less abiding'. Then, once I pointed this out, you reversed you decision to not argue they could be 'more abiding'.
I'm saying that none of these statements are true:
How about these?
1. "People who use drugs are generally more law abiding";
2. "People who use drugs are generally less law abiding";
3. "People who use drugs are as law abiding as the general population".
The upshot is that you can't even trust a compiler you wrote yourself if it was compiled to binary by someone elses compiler.
The problem to that situation is that the person who coded the compiler you use to compile your compiler would have to know when they coded it that you would eventually use it to compile your compiler, and would need to know how your compiler was coded (again, long before you actually coded it) in order to back-door their compiler to back-door your compiler to back-door your code.
Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Sure it does, because it IS ridiculous. And if you're still worried about it, write your own damn compiler from scratch.
Sheesh.
Your assertion that all code behavior can be discerned from a review of the source is incorrect.
Code is instructions. The computer follows those instructions. A human can also follow those instructions.
10 Print "hello"
20 end
There- I can easily see that this code wil print the word 'hello' and then end. I can compile the code (or run it thru an interperator) and see the results are... the printed word 'hello', and the program ending.
Again, we are NOT talking about huge, complex programs here. We're talking about code that asks "Candidate 'A' or Candidate 'B'?" and adds one to the appropriate variable. That's IT.
by BVis (267028) on Friday July 20, @09:30AM (#19925975)
It's not impossible for them to be MORE law abiding.