One of the things "professionals" know is that being able to see the source buys you nothing unless you have complete confidence in the person who wrote it.
If you can SEE the code, you can verify what it says. It doesn't matter who wrote it.
something like "if the date is November 2nd and the time is between 8:30 AM and 4:30 PM and at least 2000 ballots have already been cast on this machine and the voter selects Candidate A, clears it, enters Candidate A again, clears it, enters Candidate B, clears it, taps the lower right hand corner of the touch screen 3 times within one second.....then the result should not reflect a transfer of 50% of all Candidate A votes over to Candidate B."
LOOK AT THE CODE. If it contains a series of complex 'if...then' statements, then trace them out and see what they do. But it shouldn't contain anything like that anyway. All the code needs is "if Candidate A selected, then add 1 to Candidate A's total". Period, that's IT. Any thing more complex than that is automatically suspect, and needs to be looked at.
A scenario like this is... beyond the capability of even the most advanced tester to verify.
Wrong. Especially if the code is open to review.
For example, look at the 'qbasic' code I wrote above. It's trivial to follow the flow, and see what happens. Would you agree that it doesn't have any statements that allow for the changing of votes in a surreptious manner? Would you agree there are no 'if the date is Nov 2...', or 'if the following sequence if followed...' statements?
There, you just reviewed my code, and verified it. You did good, considering that's "beyond the capability of even the most advanced tester".
And, before you point out that this is 'just an trivial example', let me say that ALL voting software can be this simple. Okay, you probably don't want to use Qbasic:-), but the underlying software SHOULD be simple:
1) Get input from user 2) add 1 to the appropriate totals 3) Print 4) Goto 1
Yes, there are details I'm not mentioning. People should be able to select a candidate, and later de-select them and re-selecte another, right up to the point they comfirm their vote. There are multiple races, multiple referendums, voting the party line, etc. But these DETAILS are all easily handled. I'm talking about the 'big picture', not the details.
They DO try to remove them... by making drugs illegal, and getting the dealers arrested!
Drug use will probably go up. Drug abuse is not indicated to go up. There is no strong correlation between legality and use/abuse.
But there is a correlation between the absolute numbers. If you have twice as many users, you'll have twice as many abusers. The PERCENTAGE of abusers will be the same, but the number will be twice as much.
The United States have a lot more pot users than Holland even though in holland pot is decriminalized.
The USA has 25 times the population of the Netherlands.
I'm talking about a days worth of heroin not a dose.
You said 'legal heroin for a few dollars a pop'. A 'pop' is slang for a usage. Whatever.
Why would you steal if your addiction can be fed easily with panhandling or even (shock horror)working?
WHo wants to work long hours (or even short ones)? That just takes you away from your precious High. Better to spend 10 minutes mugging someone for pocket change to get high, than spending 10 hours sober working for money to get high. Remember- you don't have to be sober to mug, but you employer probably wants a sober employee.
To recap- people who want to get high will do what it takes to get high and stay high. They will still commit crimes to get the money (although, admittedly, fewer crimes, because they need less money).
Then you admit that people who are on drugs either EXACTLY as law-abiding as sober folks, or that the are LES law abiding. Considering that Drugs affect how you feel, and how you feel affects how you act, I seriously doubt druggies are EXACTLY as law-abiding as sober folks. Therefore, they are LESS.
Do you realize the output from sample interpreted code you provided cannot be trusted if the interpreter cannot be trusted? Compiled code is similarly only as trustable as the compiler.
Too bad there isn't open-source software that can be used to compile code. Then people can simple LOOK at the code that goes into the compiler, and see if it is trustworthy. Oh, well, maybe someday....
Do you realize that a computer program will only produce consistent results as long as the hardware can be trusted, and that hardware cannot be verified as trustable?
I can buy a Dell, an IBM and an E-Machines PC, run that code on all of them, and get the same results. I don't quite get your point. Off-the-shelf hardware is a comodity item these days. It doesn't matter who I buy the PC (or the parts!) from- if it runs, it should run the code identically.
... nuclear reactor control systems, missile guidance systems, flight control software, etc.
These are all very, very complex systems. A machine that adds votes is the exact opposite- a very SIMPLE system. I simple refuse to beleive that it is soooooo hard to make a 'trusted' system that adds 1+1 and gets 2.
What about the 'vote inspector' is waiting just outside the voting center? It still wrecks the anoniminity of the vote.
Um, tampering with ellections, threatening people to make them vote a certain way, and paying for votes are all illegal. If someone tries to 'inspect' your vote, point them out to the cops and/or media.
Unless you provide a receipt forger right in the voting area, in which case the inspector wonders why you took so long... As I mentioned in the other response, you not only have to worry about extortion type attempts, but bribes as well($100 bonus for voting right!).
There will always be people who throw their receipts away. Simply pick up one of those out of the garbage on the out the door.
Or just don't tell your company when you are voting.:-)
Barcodes aren't very human readable.
Um, that's why I said "human-readable AND machine readable". As in BOTH. For instance, it would say "Candidate A" in text, then the barcode for Candidate A. There are well-known and much-used barcode formats for encoding text. Use one of those, and anyone with a barcode scanner can verify that the barcode reads the same as the text. Or use your 'bubblesheets'. Whatever. The point is, it allows for quick, automated recounts (feed the journal roll(s) into a counting machine), while still allowing for manual (human eyes) recounts if the machines are questioned.
How do you make sure the secure server isn't jiggered with?
"Jiggered with' how?? Have an armed guard standing over it, making sure only authorized people approach it.
How to you prevent somebody from disconnecting the jack from one of your 'simple' voting PCs and using sofware on a PDA or micro-laptop to interface and jigger votes?
The network cable is attached to the MB, which is inside a LOCKED BOX attached to the back of the monitor. I think the voting officials would notice if someone dropped to their knees and started picking the lock. Anyway, the communication be encrypted. Unless the 'PDA or Micro-Laptop' had the right encryption keys, the server would throw a fit, and the cops would throw you in jail.
How do we make sure that some dude in the election software office doesn't slip a worm into the system? Reflash the PC?
How would a 'worm' be introduced? The networks are strictly local, except for a dial-up modem that is 'dial-out' only, and only used after polls close. As for fiddling with the results thru other means- that's why you need the journals and receipts. A random sampling of voting districts are automatically re-counted by running the 'journals' thru a tallying machine. It's a trivial machine that simply reads barcodes and adds 1 to the appropriate candidate's count. Nothing to fiddle with. In addition, a certain percentage of THOSE districts get a 'manual' recount (Human eyes read the name on the journal, human hands make a mark on paper. Humans add the marks up).
I mean, really- these are all implementation-stage issues. I beleive the idea itself is sound.
I don't understand why people think it's so hard to some up with voting software that... works. For example the (trivial) example below is perfectly fine for gathering votes between two candidates. Oh, sure, there are lots of improvements that could be made, a fancy graphical interface, and all that. But that stuff's not really necessary. Just ask the voter who they want, and add one to that candidate's total. Heck, I could whip up in an afternoon a simple program that would accept a text file with the names of the different races, and text files for each race containing the candidate's names, and make a nice-looking interface, too. And it would run off a bootable floppy.
So, why is it so hard for the 'professionals' to make a simple, secure E-voting method???
MoreVote: cls input "Are there more voters? (Y/N)"; a$ if a$="N" then goto Results if a$="Y" then goto Vote print "Please choose Y or N." Goto MoreVote
Vote: Print "1) Candidate A" Print "2) Candidate B" Input "Which are you voting for?"; b if b=1 then
CanA = CanA + 1
goto Morevote end if if b=2 then
CanB = CanB + 1
goto Morevote end if Print "That is not a valid selection." Goto Vote
No receipt to the voter. Why? They were historically used by unscrupulous men with power over others to verify votes. IE If you worked for me, I could tell you who to vote for, demand to see the receipt showing your vote, and fire you if you didn't vote correctly.
Simple solution: don't print identifying info on the ballots. Just the votes, time (to the closest minute) and which machine the vote was made on. Then IF (and it's a pretty big if) a company demanded to see a voting receipt, they would have no way to prove it was the emplyee's actual receipt. They employee could have traded it with someone, or picked it out of the garbage.
As for the specifics of how the voring machine would work- ever see an older cash register? It has a 2-ply roll of receipt paper- one ply stayed in the printer as a journal, the other gets spit out, cut, and handed to the customer as a receipt. Just use something like that. The 'journal' tape can be seen under glass, allowing the paranoid voter to compare with the 'receipt' copy. If a re-count is needed, the 'journal' spool is fed thru a counting machine, which counts the votes again. (Votes are in human-readable AND machine readable (ie: barcode) format). If there are questions on whether the barcodes match the human-readable votes, then the journal spool can be run past human eyes, and the tallys compared. In the worst-case scanario, the voters could be asked to return with their receipt copies, and those could be scanned. As long as a statistically significant percentage come in, the votes can be verified with pretty good accuracy.
As for the voting machines themselves, it is trivial to make a secure server that sits in the corner of the room. It boots off a DVD, with another DVD for the canadate information. The terminals are just micro-atx boards in a locked box mounted to the back of a touch-screen LCD on a pedestal , with the printer sitting next to them. They all boot over the network off the server, and run a simple program. After all, all you need to do is show the canadate's names and allow the user to choose on or the other. Votes are kept on the server, multiple drives, etc. When polls close, the server calls the 'local' result server and sends the results. It's only a few dozen names and totals, so it's a short call, even with heavy encryption. The 'local' results servers call the 'regional', and they call the 'national'. Viola!!! Results from a nation-wide vote in minutes!
.
Are there issues/problems/exploits with the above idea? Yes. But it's a hell of a lot better than Diebold machines that can be disassembled and have their drives removed, etc.
I wouldn't want to use roads that allow drunk driving.
ANd most people (everyone but you, as far as I can tell) don't want to 'use' (read: 'live in') neighborhoods that allow drug dealers.
If you could get legal heroin for a few dollars a pop you wouldn't need to boost cars.
1) If I could get heroin legally, it would be from a drug store. A retail establishment. NOT a street corner dealer. (Do you get asprin, cigarettes, or booze from a guy hanging out on the corner??) Therefore, the 'corner dealer' would be out of business. You seem to assume that he would then magically become gainfully employed, rather than continuing his life of crime.
2) Even if I could get drugs legally, crime would not stop. The numbe rof crimes comitted to GET money to buy drugs might go down. But the cheap price and social acceptance would cause drug USE to go up, and therefore more crimes would be committed by people USING drugs.
3) During the trial, it was mentioned that the street price for heroin was $10 per dose. That's not far off from from the "few dollars a pop" you seem to think will cause all drug crime to disappear. Yet, drug crimes happen all the time.
you don't just push a seed in the ground and it grows you know,
Um, yes it does. Beleive it or not, plants were around long before fertilizer ('ammonia nitrate') was created.
Now, if you are talking about 'forcing' the plants to grow faster and bigger, then YES, farmers can and do use a lot of fertilizer. But fertilizer can be made of other things than ammonia nitrate. Imagine fields fetrilized by human (and other animal) waste. Since it's not a food crop, there is no health issue.
But anyone who only ever deals drugs isn't a criminal in my book and that's the goddamn point.
No- the 'goddamn point' is that it NOT "your book" that determines what is illegal. It is Society's 'book'. And Society has determined that the manufacture and sale of certain substances is illegal. Why? Because it causes other problems, attracts the criminal element who end up committing other crimes. This is NOT a Human Rights issue like Slavery. It is a safety issue. A Quality of Life issue.
If they behave illegally in other ways then the drug charge is superfluous.
So, do you think drunk drivers should be let go, too? After all, if they kill someone, then they should be charged with a crime...?
I am unlikely to rat someone out.
They point is, they aren't the smartest people in the world, or they wouldn't be breaking the law to begin with.
It might happen if it was a case of battery or destruction of prooperty. But then the problem wouldn't be the drugs now would it?.
That's like saying a person died from lack of oxygenated blood flowing to the brain... the bullet holes in their body weren't the problem. Hello!- one caused the other!
If they have a better product than the ones that are already here, they are more than welcome. Otherwise they'll be broke and move on. Free market at its best.
Be sure to tell your neighbors who object to your little crack house that it's 'free market at its best'. That'll make them feel better about the lower property values, increased crime, and finding drugged out hos passed out on their front lawns.
The law made them into criminals, not their business.
Perhaps. I prefer to look at what makes them... unacceptable.
Their hanging out on street corners, harassing people, and causing trouble is what makes them unacceptable. And why are they hanging out on street corners, harassing people? Because they are dealing/using drugs.
I agree, IF they were operating like retail establishments, there would be less opposition to them. But they are not. They are breaking the Law. In fact, usually more than one law. This makes them a danger to Society, and Society is right to remove the offenders.
If it was legal they would be regular taxpayers like the rest of us.
Actually, no. If selling [illegal] drugs was legal, I'm sure there would be plenty of rules and regulations concerning the quality and quantiy of drugs sold. For instance, it is legal for Americans to brew beer... up to 100 gallons per person in the household. An ounce more than that? Illegal. It's also illegal for people to distill alcohol (to drink- you can apply to make booze "for non-beverage purposes for fuel use only"). A more... mundane example is the list of rules and regulation regarding a food service business- standards of cleanliness, inspections, etc.
Anyway, these rules and regulations would drive out most of the 'casual' drug producers. And big corporations (who already meet guidelines, because they already produce prescription drugs) would undercut any who remained. The street-corner dealer would have to turn to other methods of making money. Like mugging, robbing, 'protection' rackets, etc.
As for the IP, I have already been paid...
No, you haven't been- everyone copied your idea without paying you, remember?? The very fact you have been paid means others have NOT been copying your ideas for free.
You will have to deal with the people who claim exclusivity over it.
Hard to get paid for something unless it is at least a little bit exclusive.
more than one way to read GP's experience: racism is one explanation, but subverting the ``war on drugs'' and ``three-strikes-you're-out'' rule is another.
Sorry. You weren't there. I was. These people wouldn't have known 'jury nullification' from 'habeus corpus'. And I don't just mean the technical legal definition. Neither of them so much as mentioned 'I don't like the law' or anything similar. Again, I was there. There was plenty that happened that I am not telling you. What they said, how they said it. Attitudes. Body language. Tonal inflections. Etc.
It was racism.
But when laws are unjust and the police are shady,
There was no evidence that "the police were shady" in this case. The one juror who said 'not guilty' to the first charge (for which there was no video/audio tape), implied that there was something 'fishy' about it not being recorded. But there was a simple explanation: the UC was not expecting to buy that day, just to meet the dealer. The fact the defendant was so eager to sell was unforeseen. Other than that, there was absolutely nothing that could even be considered "shady".
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the police. I nit-pick every case I hear of where there was even the possibility of misconduct. For instance, I think that the cops involved in the UCLA Tasering case should be thrown in jail for tasering a restrained man multiple times. But there was nothing 'wrong' about the evidence or testimony in my case.
Like I said, when questioned on WHY they were saying 'not guilty', they did not answer, but became very defensive. "I can say Not Guilty, it's my right, and you can't make me change". Once that was said, we went back to the judge with a notification of a hung jury. He refused to accept that and sent us back for several more days of deliberation. During those days, as we discussed and re-discussed, and re-re-discussed the evidence, the other statements I mentioned in my original post came out. They were shot down, one by one:
'He was set up' Um, how? He's handing drugs to a cop, and accepting money. How can you 'set up' a situation like that?? besides, the Defense ADMITTED he handed over drugs for money.
'It's his Third Strike, and I don't want to be responsible for sending him to prison for life' Um, sentencing is not our call. We just determine Guilt.
'I don't beleive the UncerCover cop' Um, what of the HOURS of video and audio tape? Don't beleive that, too? What of the defense, again, ADMITTING the facts of the case??
'I beleive the defense- it was Agency' This we fought hard about. To be a legal 'agent', the person CANNOT profit from the situation. If they gain anything (make money) from the dealer, they are working for the dealer, and are guilty of being a dealer. If they gain anything (make money) off the buyer, they are working for the buyer, and are guilty of BUYING drugs AND selling them for profit: ie, being a dealer. Only if they do not profit can they be an 'Agent'. There was videotape of the defendant walking away from the deal(s) counting his money, smiling. He didn't go to the corner and hand over the money to 'the real dealer' he went to 'as a favor' to the UC. He walked away with the money. He profited. He was not an agent. Period. But the two hold-outs would not admit this. They would admit to each of the facts, but not put them together.
Never once was the point 'I don't agree with the law' brought up. It was a blatant case of racism.
I will never send somebody to jail over what I consider bad and unjust law. Never.
Please tell us where you live. Then we can send all the streeet-corner hookers and drug dealers to hang out outside YOUR house. Or tell us what Intellectual Property you have created, so we can all make free copies of it, denying you any profit.
The last example you put forth is an example of the jury system working not the opposite. Drug laws suck for all intents and purposes.
Funny. That wasn't a reason the two hold-outs gave. If they DID give that reason, I could understand it, and make a counter-argument.
Actually, the whole reason the UnderCover cop ('UC') was sent to that neighborhood to find and bust drug dealers was CITIZEN COMPLAINTS. You see, drug dealers (and drug users) tend to break other laws as well. They hang out on the street corners, bothering passers-by, playing loud music, annoying the neighbors.
Perhaps, if drug laws were repealed, and drug dealing was 'legitimized' and took place in stores (like alcohol and cigarettes, or prescription drugs), then the situation would be different. 'Business' would happen in retail areas, not on street corners. Drug-gang related shootings would be zero. (When was the last time the 'CVS Pharm crew' shot up a Rite-Aid?) Drug prices would no longer be astromonical (they are high because selling is illegal and risky. Higher prices compensate for the higher risk.)
But all this is fantasy. Drugs (you know what I mean. Illegal Drugs) are NOT legal. Drugs are illegal. And so, their sale and use causes problems. Society has a Right, no- a Duty- to try to eliminate these problems.
Being able to fuck over a law that is unjust
It is "unjust" to want to not be harrassed? It is "unjust" to not want criminals hanging around your neighborhood? It is "unjust" to want criminals to be dealt with??
I'll tell you what I wish I had told the hold-outs: "I hope you have a problem with drug dealers in your neightborhood. I hope you call the cops. I hope the dealer(s) gets arrested, put on trial, found Not Guilty, and put right back out on the streets by a juror just like you.
And when that dealer busts in your door looking for 'who done ratted me out', maybe, just maybe, then you'll understand.
The first time I was summoned to jury duty, I though 'hey, way to get paid for doing nothing!', and I was right. Three days sitting, reading a book, waiting to be called. Cool.
Second time, I got put on a case. To say I 'quickly became dis-enamored with the legal system' would be like saying 'upon exposure to heat, the gasoline rapidly oxidized'. True, but a major understatement.
It was a civil case, 6 jurors. A woman driving a mini-van backed into a pedestrian, knocking him down, breaking his collarbone. I could go on for hours describing the details, but the relevant facts are:
1) the man admited to leaving the crosswalk and walking diagonally down the road 2) the man's statements contradicted themselves, to the point he comitted perjury 3) In my opinion, the woman acted reasonably. She checked her side mirror, rear miror, and them turned her upper body and head so she could look out the rear window of the mini-van as she reversed. The fact that the man was in the middle of the block, in the middle of the street, in her blind spot, was not her fault. 4) the man was asking for over a half-million dollars, just for 'pain and suffering'.
Long story short, it was my opinion that, since the woman acted reasonably, and the man was the one who left the crosswalk (and later lied under oath), she owed him nothing. Unfortunately, the other 5 jurors did not see it that way. This was New York, a city where there are more pedestrians than drivers. I could practically see the $-signs in people eyes. I actually had one juror say 'If you got hit by a car, wouldn't you want to get compensated?' I replied 'I wouldn't expect money if I was the one at fault."
Since a civil case does not need a unanimous verdict, in the end we found for the plaintiff. Now the matter of how much came into play. The "ammount to adaquately compensate him for his losses" was determined (by the other 5) to be around $130,000. They knocked off 35% because they magnanamously agreed it was 'partly his fault' that he jay-walked behind a moving vehicle. That brought the award to abotu $100,000. Then one particularly bright juror piped up with thas shocked: "...but his lawyer will take 1/3, wo we have to give him more", like it's our job to pay the mans lawyer!! We didn't know the man's legal fees. Heck, the laywer could have been a friend doing it for free, for all we knew.
And then something happened that... put it all in perspective. Soemthing that made me realize why the jury system in this country, while it was no doubt a good idea when it was created, is no longer wise.
They decided to give him $133,000.
Now, dear reader, please take a moment to do the math. The jurors wanted to award the men 'X', such that when 1/3X was removed, the man ended up with $100,000. 100,000 = X - 1/3X 100,000 = 2/3X 3/2 * 100,000 = X 150,000 = x
I was doing this in 5th grade, but these MORONS couldn't even get this SIMPLE math right. I tried to correct tham. Twice. Then I shut up, since their error lowered the award I thought should be $0 anyway.
.
Don't even get me started on my 3rd jury duty. Undercover Cop had audio and video of the defendant selling him drugs on 6 out of 7 occasions (the first time they weren't recording as the UC was just supposed to meet the guy, but the guy was so eager to sell, he sold to the UC that time too.) They have video of him walking away counting the money, smiling. The defense ADMITTED the defendant handed over drugs for money on each occasion. Their only defense? 'AGENCY'- the man wasn't 'selling' drugs to the UC, he was 'purchasing drugs FOR the UC', as his 'agent'. Of course, the defendant seem to already have the drugs the UC wanted on hand, and the video of him counting the money, smiling, implies he was making a profit (making a profit from either side means he no longer met the legal definition of an 'agent'). Oh- and he'd been to jail 2 time before for... you guessed it, dealing drugs. There was one minor marijuana charge w
Its a big money making scam, dressed up as some sort of 'stick it to the man' bullshit.
You're just jealous you didn't think of it first.
I want them to obey the fucking law and pay for content like honest people.
Law =/= Right
Legal =/= Honest
people using the pirate bay are just too tight assed to pay for their entertainment like everyone else
There are a ton of arguments I could make here, but I'm sure you'd just ignore them all. But let me list a few:
1) Seeing a movie in the theater costs a lot. Depending on how many people are going, snacks, babysitter, transportation, etc, it could run more for one movie than people budget for food for the week. So, those people CANNOT AFFORD to see that movie. There is no way the MPAA would be getting any of their money, because they cannot afford to pay. Since the MPAA ain't getting no money nohow, there is no loss if the person Downloads the movie.
2) Movies are increasingly crappy. It's nice to be able to see a (admittedly low-quality) copy of the movie to see if you WANT to go see it in the theater (or buy on dvd).
3) Most, if not all, the stuff I download (hypothetically, of course) is NOT first-run movies. I (hypothetically) download TV series, older movies, anime, etc. TV series? Older Movies? Guess what- these are shown FREE over the airwaves on TV!!! The only differences are: 1) Poorer quality. 2) No ads. 3) Convenience.
Since I would channel-surf during the ads anyway (or get up to get a snack, or go to the bathrom), #2 is irrelevent- I would not watch the ads in any case. The poorer quality might very well lead me to actually BUY the DVD(s) (assuming it is available!). But the biggest difference is #3- Convenience. I can watch the episode/movie I want to watch , when I want to watch it. I can pause, stop, jump back and forth if I wish. This is a BIG 'plus' for me, and does not affect the MPAA (or whoever) whatsoever.
So: Downloading does NOT negatively affect the producers if you are downloading stuff that is free-over-the-air.
If it was made by someone else and has a price, and you take it without paying, it's theft.
True.
But, if it was made by someone else and has a price, and you COPY it without paying, it's Copyright infringment.
You may call it a "pedantic argument", but that's the whole point: if it was 'theft', then they would charge file sharers with "theft". But they don't, do they?
In a swedish newspaper they stated that they hadn't removed anything. Guess both sides are lying here.
kopimi - Y-day 23:40 when searching for child porn the moderators found a lot of spam, false torrent descriptions and other stuff. it's therefor they got deleted. the admins _suspended_ some torrents that where questionable but they are back if they where correctly described or such. users are deleted all the time when they spam or put up spyware/virus and so on.
So, they searched for child porn, didn't find any, but did find mis-labeled torrents, spam, and malware.
kopimi - Y-day 23:40 when searching for child porn the moderators found a lot of spam, false torrent descriptions and other stuff. it's therefor they got deleted. the admins _suspended_ some torrents that where questionable but they are back if they where correctly described or such. users are deleted all the time when they spam or put up spyware/virus and so on.
So, they searched for child porn, didn't find any, but did find mis-labeled torrents, spam, and malware.
And it's obvious that many people feel it is NOT worthwhile.
Also, the extremely vague things you noted (situations that allow warrantless searches, pen register provisions which allow warrantless call logging, and large volumes of security cameras) were around long before 9/11 and long before Bush
Yes, before 9/11 there were circumstance in which the police could search without a warrant. And even then it was being abused. Now, there are MANY MORE circumstances where police have that power.
Yes, there were pen registers before 9/11. But now, they are talking about forcing ISPs to log ALL traffic.
Yes, there were security cameras before 9/11. But now they are planning on covering an entire CITY. They already have done so in other countries (Airstrip One... er, England).
An analogy often used is 'Drop a frog in boiling water, it'll hop right out. But drop a frog in cold water and gradually turn up the heat, and it'll boil to death'. This is obviously not true. BUT, if you were to slow the increase in temperature so that it spanned generations, you would slowly evolve a frog that was comfortable in high temperature water. (Look at anti-bacterial resistant bacteria for another example.)
And that is what is happening here. Every new generation will grow up with a few more cameras, a few more 'security measures', AND THEY WILL ACCEPT THEM AS THE WAY THINGS ARE. When they see one more camera go up, it'll be "just one more, no big deal". When THEIR kids grow up, they'll be used to the increased surveillance; it will be 'normal' for them, so when they see ANOTHER camera go up, it'll again be "just one more, no big deal".
Just like each generation of frogs grows up in temerature that's "just one degree higher, no big deal".
.
When I think about it, I'm almost sorry I have kids. They'll experience less and less Freedom, more and more surveillance, more and more (useless) 'security'.
And the worst part is, since they have nothing to compare to, they won't even miss it.
What was the quote?
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
2) He was told to produce ID or leave. He refused to produce ID. The Kampus Kops called the real cops, and when they got there, HE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF LEAVING THE LIBRARY. That's right- he was given the choice to show ID or leave, so he was leaving. Then the cops GRABBED him even though he was following the instructions (show id or LEAVE). They handcuffed him THEN tasered him several times.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the things "professionals" know is that being able to see the source buys you nothing unless you have complete confidence in the person who wrote it.
... beyond the capability of even the most advanced tester to verify.
:-), but the underlying software SHOULD be simple:
If you can SEE the code, you can verify what it says. It doesn't matter who wrote it.
something like "if the date is November 2nd and the time is between 8:30 AM and 4:30 PM and at least 2000 ballots have already been cast on this machine and the voter selects Candidate A, clears it, enters Candidate A again, clears it, enters Candidate B, clears it, taps the lower right hand corner of the touch screen 3 times within one second.....then the result should not reflect a transfer of 50% of all Candidate A votes over to Candidate B."
LOOK AT THE CODE. If it contains a series of complex 'if...then' statements, then trace them out and see what they do. But it shouldn't contain anything like that anyway. All the code needs is "if Candidate A selected, then add 1 to Candidate A's total". Period, that's IT. Any thing more complex than that is automatically suspect, and needs to be looked at.
A scenario like this is
Wrong. Especially if the code is open to review.
For example, look at the 'qbasic' code I wrote above. It's trivial to follow the flow, and see what happens. Would you agree that it doesn't have any statements that allow for the changing of votes in a surreptious manner? Would you agree there are no 'if the date is Nov 2...', or 'if the following sequence if followed...' statements?
There, you just reviewed my code, and verified it. You did good, considering that's "beyond the capability of even the most advanced tester".
And, before you point out that this is 'just an trivial example', let me say that ALL voting software can be this simple. Okay, you probably don't want to use Qbasic
1) Get input from user
2) add 1 to the appropriate totals
3) Print
4) Goto 1
Yes, there are details I'm not mentioning. People should be able to select a candidate, and later de-select them and re-selecte another, right up to the point they comfirm their vote. There are multiple races, multiple referendums, voting the party line, etc. But these DETAILS are all easily handled. I'm talking about the 'big picture', not the details.
Then the neighborhoods can try to remove them.
They DO try to remove them... by making drugs illegal, and getting the dealers arrested!
Drug use will probably go up. Drug abuse is not indicated to go up. There is no strong correlation between legality and use/abuse.
But there is a correlation between the absolute numbers. If you have twice as many users, you'll have twice as many abusers. The PERCENTAGE of abusers will be the same, but the number will be twice as much.
The United States have a lot more pot users than Holland even though in holland pot is decriminalized.
The USA has 25 times the population of the Netherlands.
I'm talking about a days worth of heroin not a dose.
You said 'legal heroin for a few dollars a pop'. A 'pop' is slang for a usage. Whatever.
Why would you steal if your addiction can be fed easily with panhandling or even (shock horror)working?
WHo wants to work long hours (or even short ones)? That just takes you away from your precious High. Better to spend 10 minutes mugging someone for pocket change to get high, than spending 10 hours sober working for money to get high. Remember- you don't have to be sober to mug, but you employer probably wants a sober employee.
To recap- people who want to get high will do what it takes to get high and stay high. They will still commit crimes to get the money (although, admittedly, fewer crimes, because they need less money).
Then you admit that people who are on drugs either EXACTLY as law-abiding as sober folks, or that the are LES law abiding. Considering that Drugs affect how you feel, and how you feel affects how you act, I seriously doubt druggies are EXACTLY as law-abiding as sober folks. Therefore, they are LESS.
Do you realize the output from sample interpreted code you provided cannot be trusted if the interpreter cannot be trusted? Compiled code is similarly only as trustable as the compiler.
... nuclear reactor control systems, missile guidance systems, flight control software, etc.
Too bad there isn't open-source software that can be used to compile code. Then people can simple LOOK at the code that goes into the compiler, and see if it is trustworthy. Oh, well, maybe someday....
Do you realize that a computer program will only produce consistent results as long as the hardware can be trusted, and that hardware cannot be verified as trustable?
I can buy a Dell, an IBM and an E-Machines PC, run that code on all of them, and get the same results. I don't quite get your point. Off-the-shelf hardware is a comodity item these days. It doesn't matter who I buy the PC (or the parts!) from- if it runs, it should run the code identically.
These are all very, very complex systems. A machine that adds votes is the exact opposite- a very SIMPLE system. I simple refuse to beleive that it is soooooo hard to make a 'trusted' system that adds 1+1 and gets 2.
What about the 'vote inspector' is waiting just outside the voting center? It still wrecks the anoniminity of the vote.
:-)
Um, tampering with ellections, threatening people to make them vote a certain way, and paying for votes are all illegal. If someone tries to 'inspect' your vote, point them out to the cops and/or media.
Unless you provide a receipt forger right in the voting area, in which case the inspector wonders why you took so long... As I mentioned in the other response, you not only have to worry about extortion type attempts, but bribes as well($100 bonus for voting right!).
There will always be people who throw their receipts away. Simply pick up one of those out of the garbage on the out the door.
Or just don't tell your company when you are voting.
Barcodes aren't very human readable.
Um, that's why I said "human-readable AND machine readable". As in BOTH. For instance, it would say "Candidate A" in text, then the barcode for Candidate A. There are well-known and much-used barcode formats for encoding text. Use one of those, and anyone with a barcode scanner can verify that the barcode reads the same as the text.
Or use your 'bubblesheets'. Whatever. The point is, it allows for quick, automated recounts (feed the journal roll(s) into a counting machine), while still allowing for manual (human eyes) recounts if the machines are questioned.
How do you make sure the secure server isn't jiggered with?
"Jiggered with' how?? Have an armed guard standing over it, making sure only authorized people approach it.
How to you prevent somebody from disconnecting the jack from one of your 'simple' voting PCs and using sofware on a PDA or micro-laptop to interface and jigger votes?
The network cable is attached to the MB, which is inside a LOCKED BOX attached to the back of the monitor. I think the voting officials would notice if someone dropped to their knees and started picking the lock. Anyway, the communication be encrypted. Unless the 'PDA or Micro-Laptop' had the right encryption keys, the server would throw a fit, and the cops would throw you in jail.
How do we make sure that some dude in the election software office doesn't slip a worm into the system? Reflash the PC?
How would a 'worm' be introduced? The networks are strictly local, except for a dial-up modem that is 'dial-out' only, and only used after polls close. As for fiddling with the results thru other means- that's why you need the journals and receipts. A random sampling of voting districts are automatically re-counted by running the 'journals' thru a tallying machine. It's a trivial machine that simply reads barcodes and adds 1 to the appropriate candidate's count. Nothing to fiddle with. In addition, a certain percentage of THOSE districts get a 'manual' recount (Human eyes read the name on the journal, human hands make a mark on paper. Humans add the marks up).
I mean, really- these are all implementation-stage issues. I beleive the idea itself is sound.
Ooh, nice ad hominem. Imply I'm stupid, instead of answering the question.
If this is what passes for logic in today's schools, I'm not surprised they turn out such poor programmers.
So, why is it so hard for the 'professionals' to make a simple, secure E-voting method???
No receipt to the voter. Why? They were historically used by unscrupulous men with power over others to verify votes. IE If you worked for me, I could tell you who to vote for, demand to see the receipt showing your vote, and fire you if you didn't vote correctly.
Simple solution: don't print identifying info on the ballots. Just the votes, time (to the closest minute) and which machine the vote was made on. Then IF (and it's a pretty big if) a company demanded to see a voting receipt, they would have no way to prove it was the emplyee's actual receipt. They employee could have traded it with someone, or picked it out of the garbage.
As for the specifics of how the voring machine would work- ever see an older cash register? It has a 2-ply roll of receipt paper- one ply stayed in the printer as a journal, the other gets spit out, cut, and handed to the customer as a receipt. Just use something like that. The 'journal' tape can be seen under glass, allowing the paranoid voter to compare with the 'receipt' copy. If a re-count is needed, the 'journal' spool is fed thru a counting machine, which counts the votes again. (Votes are in human-readable AND machine readable (ie: barcode) format). If there are questions on whether the barcodes match the human-readable votes, then the journal spool can be run past human eyes, and the tallys compared. In the worst-case scanario, the voters could be asked to return with their receipt copies, and those could be scanned. As long as a statistically significant percentage come in, the votes can be verified with pretty good accuracy.
As for the voting machines themselves, it is trivial to make a secure server that sits in the corner of the room. It boots off a DVD, with another DVD for the canadate information. The terminals are just micro-atx boards in a locked box mounted to the back of a touch-screen LCD on a pedestal , with the printer sitting next to them. They all boot over the network off the server, and run a simple program. After all, all you need to do is show the canadate's names and allow the user to choose on or the other. Votes are kept on the server, multiple drives, etc. When polls close, the server calls the 'local' result server and sends the results. It's only a few dozen names and totals, so it's a short call, even with heavy encryption. The 'local' results servers call the 'regional', and they call the 'national'. Viola!!! Results from a nation-wide vote in minutes!
.
Are there issues/problems/exploits with the above idea? Yes. But it's a hell of a lot better than Diebold machines that can be disassembled and have their drives removed, etc.
Yes, because as we all know, the primary effect of any illegal drug is to cause an uncontrollable desire to commit a felony.
Oh wait, no it isn't. Care to explain?
Are you arguing that people who are under the influence of drugs are _more_ law-abiding than those who are not under the influence?
I wouldn't want to use roads that allow drunk driving.
ANd most people (everyone but you, as far as I can tell) don't want to 'use' (read: 'live in') neighborhoods that allow drug dealers.
If you could get legal heroin for a few dollars a pop you wouldn't need to boost cars.
1) If I could get heroin legally, it would be from a drug store. A retail establishment. NOT a street corner dealer. (Do you get asprin, cigarettes, or booze from a guy hanging out on the corner??) Therefore, the 'corner dealer' would be out of business. You seem to assume that he would then magically become gainfully employed, rather than continuing his life of crime.
2) Even if I could get drugs legally, crime would not stop. The numbe rof crimes comitted to GET money to buy drugs might go down. But the cheap price and social acceptance would cause drug USE to go up, and therefore more crimes would be committed by people USING drugs.
3) During the trial, it was mentioned that the street price for heroin was $10 per dose. That's not far off from from the "few dollars a pop" you seem to think will cause all drug crime to disappear. Yet, drug crimes happen all the time.
you don't just push a seed in the ground and it grows you know,
Um, yes it does. Beleive it or not, plants were around long before fertilizer ('ammonia nitrate') was created.
Now, if you are talking about 'forcing' the plants to grow faster and bigger, then YES, farmers can and do use a lot of fertilizer. But fertilizer can be made of other things than ammonia nitrate. Imagine fields fetrilized by human (and other animal) waste. Since it's not a food crop, there is no health issue.
But anyone who only ever deals drugs isn't a criminal in my book and that's the goddamn point.
No- the 'goddamn point' is that it NOT "your book" that determines what is illegal. It is Society's 'book'. And Society has determined that the manufacture and sale of certain substances is illegal. Why? Because it causes other problems, attracts the criminal element who end up committing other crimes. This is NOT a Human Rights issue like Slavery. It is a safety issue. A Quality of Life issue.
If they behave illegally in other ways then the drug charge is superfluous.
So, do you think drunk drivers should be let go, too? After all, if they kill someone, then they should be charged with a crime...?
I am unlikely to rat someone out.
They point is, they aren't the smartest people in the world, or they wouldn't be breaking the law to begin with.
It might happen if it was a case of battery or destruction of prooperty. But then the problem wouldn't be the drugs now would it?.
That's like saying a person died from lack of oxygenated blood flowing to the brain... the bullet holes in their body weren't the problem. Hello!- one caused the other!
If they have a better product than the ones that are already here, they are more than welcome. Otherwise they'll be broke and move on. Free market at its best.
Be sure to tell your neighbors who object to your little crack house that it's 'free market at its best'. That'll make them feel better about the lower property values, increased crime, and finding drugged out hos passed out on their front lawns.
The law made them into criminals, not their business.
Perhaps. I prefer to look at what makes them... unacceptable.
Their hanging out on street corners, harassing people, and causing trouble is what makes them unacceptable. And why are they hanging out on street corners, harassing people? Because they are dealing/using drugs.
I agree, IF they were operating like retail establishments, there would be less opposition to them. But they are not. They are breaking the Law. In fact, usually more than one law. This makes them a danger to Society, and Society is right to remove the offenders.
If it was legal they would be regular taxpayers like the rest of us.
Actually, no. If selling [illegal] drugs was legal, I'm sure there would be plenty of rules and regulations concerning the quality and quantiy of drugs sold. For instance, it is legal for Americans to brew beer... up to 100 gallons per person in the household. An ounce more than that? Illegal. It's also illegal for people to distill alcohol (to drink- you can apply to make booze "for non-beverage purposes for fuel use only"). A more... mundane example is the list of rules and regulation regarding a food service business- standards of cleanliness, inspections, etc.
Anyway, these rules and regulations would drive out most of the 'casual' drug producers. And big corporations (who already meet guidelines, because they already produce prescription drugs) would undercut any who remained. The street-corner dealer would have to turn to other methods of making money. Like mugging, robbing, 'protection' rackets, etc.
As for the IP, I have already been paid...
No, you haven't been- everyone copied your idea without paying you, remember?? The very fact you have been paid means others have NOT been copying your ideas for free.
You will have to deal with the people who claim exclusivity over it.
Hard to get paid for something unless it is at least a little bit exclusive.
more than one way to read GP's experience: racism is one explanation, but subverting the ``war on drugs'' and ``three-strikes-you're-out'' rule is another.
Sorry. You weren't there. I was. These people wouldn't have known 'jury nullification' from 'habeus corpus'. And I don't just mean the technical legal definition. Neither of them so much as mentioned 'I don't like the law' or anything similar.
Again, I was there. There was plenty that happened that I am not telling you. What they said, how they said it. Attitudes. Body language. Tonal inflections. Etc.
It was racism.
But when laws are unjust and the police are shady,
There was no evidence that "the police were shady" in this case. The one juror who said 'not guilty' to the first charge (for which there was no video/audio tape), implied that there was something 'fishy' about it not being recorded. But there was a simple explanation: the UC was not expecting to buy that day, just to meet the dealer. The fact the defendant was so eager to sell was unforeseen. Other than that, there was absolutely nothing that could even be considered "shady".
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the police. I nit-pick every case I hear of where there was even the possibility of misconduct. For instance, I think that the cops involved in the UCLA Tasering case should be thrown in jail for tasering a restrained man multiple times. But there was nothing 'wrong' about the evidence or testimony in my case.
Could have been a case of nullification.
No.
Like I said, when questioned on WHY they were saying 'not guilty', they did not answer, but became very defensive. "I can say Not Guilty, it's my right, and you can't make me change". Once that was said, we went back to the judge with a notification of a hung jury. He refused to accept that and sent us back for several more days of deliberation. During those days, as we discussed and re-discussed, and re-re-discussed the evidence, the other statements I mentioned in my original post came out. They were shot down, one by one:
'He was set up'
Um, how? He's handing drugs to a cop, and accepting money. How can you 'set up' a situation like that?? besides, the Defense ADMITTED he handed over drugs for money.
'It's his Third Strike, and I don't want to be responsible for sending him to prison for life'
Um, sentencing is not our call. We just determine Guilt.
'I don't beleive the UncerCover cop'
Um, what of the HOURS of video and audio tape? Don't beleive that, too? What of the defense, again, ADMITTING the facts of the case??
'I beleive the defense- it was Agency'
This we fought hard about. To be a legal 'agent', the person CANNOT profit from the situation. If they gain anything (make money) from the dealer, they are working for the dealer, and are guilty of being a dealer. If they gain anything (make money) off the buyer, they are working for the buyer, and are guilty of BUYING drugs AND selling them for profit: ie, being a dealer. Only if they do not profit can they be an 'Agent'.
There was videotape of the defendant walking away from the deal(s) counting his money, smiling. He didn't go to the corner and hand over the money to 'the real dealer' he went to 'as a favor' to the UC. He walked away with the money. He profited. He was not an agent. Period. But the two hold-outs would not admit this. They would admit to each of the facts, but not put them together.
Never once was the point 'I don't agree with the law' brought up. It was a blatant case of racism.
I will never send somebody to jail over what I consider bad and unjust law. Never.
Please tell us where you live. Then we can send all the streeet-corner hookers and drug dealers to hang out outside YOUR house. Or tell us what Intellectual Property you have created, so we can all make free copies of it, denying you any profit.
I have a feeling you might change your mind....
The last example you put forth is an example of the jury system working not the opposite. Drug laws suck for all intents and purposes.
Funny. That wasn't a reason the two hold-outs gave. If they DID give that reason, I could understand it, and make a counter-argument.
Actually, the whole reason the UnderCover cop ('UC') was sent to that neighborhood to find and bust drug dealers was CITIZEN COMPLAINTS. You see, drug dealers (and drug users) tend to break other laws as well. They hang out on the street corners, bothering passers-by, playing loud music, annoying the neighbors.
Perhaps, if drug laws were repealed, and drug dealing was 'legitimized' and took place in stores (like alcohol and cigarettes, or prescription drugs), then the situation would be different. 'Business' would happen in retail areas, not on street corners. Drug-gang related shootings would be zero. (When was the last time the 'CVS Pharm crew' shot up a Rite-Aid?) Drug prices would no longer be astromonical (they are high because selling is illegal and risky. Higher prices compensate for the higher risk.)
But all this is fantasy. Drugs (you know what I mean. Illegal Drugs) are NOT legal. Drugs are illegal. And so, their sale and use causes problems. Society has a Right, no- a Duty- to try to eliminate these problems.
Being able to fuck over a law that is unjust
It is "unjust" to want to not be harrassed? It is "unjust" to not want criminals hanging around your neighborhood? It is "unjust" to want criminals to be dealt with??
I'll tell you what I wish I had told the hold-outs: "I hope you have a problem with drug dealers in your neightborhood. I hope you call the cops. I hope the dealer(s) gets arrested, put on trial, found Not Guilty, and put right back out on the streets by a juror just like you .
And when that dealer busts in your door looking for 'who done ratted me out', maybe, just maybe, then you'll understand.
The first time I was summoned to jury duty, I though 'hey, way to get paid for doing nothing!', and I was right. Three days sitting, reading a book, waiting to be called. Cool.
Second time, I got put on a case. To say I 'quickly became dis-enamored with the legal system' would be like saying 'upon exposure to heat, the gasoline rapidly oxidized'. True, but a major understatement.
It was a civil case, 6 jurors. A woman driving a mini-van backed into a pedestrian, knocking him down, breaking his collarbone. I could go on for hours describing the details, but the relevant facts are:
1) the man admited to leaving the crosswalk and walking diagonally down the road
2) the man's statements contradicted themselves, to the point he comitted perjury
3) In my opinion, the woman acted reasonably. She checked her side mirror, rear miror, and them turned her upper body and head so she could look out the rear window of the mini-van as she reversed. The fact that the man was in the middle of the block, in the middle of the street, in her blind spot, was not her fault.
4) the man was asking for over a half-million dollars, just for 'pain and suffering'.
Long story short, it was my opinion that, since the woman acted reasonably, and the man was the one who left the crosswalk (and later lied under oath), she owed him nothing. Unfortunately, the other 5 jurors did not see it that way. This was New York, a city where there are more pedestrians than drivers. I could practically see the $-signs in people eyes. I actually had one juror say 'If you got hit by a car, wouldn't you want to get compensated?' I replied 'I wouldn't expect money if I was the one at fault."
Since a civil case does not need a unanimous verdict, in the end we found for the plaintiff. Now the matter of how much came into play. The "ammount to adaquately compensate him for his losses" was determined (by the other 5) to be around $130,000. They knocked off 35% because they magnanamously agreed it was 'partly his fault' that he jay-walked behind a moving vehicle. That brought the award to abotu $100,000. Then one particularly bright juror piped up with thas shocked: "...but his lawyer will take 1/3, wo we have to give him more", like it's our job to pay the mans lawyer!! We didn't know the man's legal fees. Heck, the laywer could have been a friend doing it for free, for all we knew.
And then something happened that... put it all in perspective. Soemthing that made me realize why the jury system in this country, while it was no doubt a good idea when it was created, is no longer wise.
They decided to give him $133,000.
Now, dear reader, please take a moment to do the math. The jurors wanted to award the men 'X', such that when 1/3X was removed, the man ended up with $100,000.
100,000 = X - 1/3X
100,000 = 2/3X
3/2 * 100,000 = X
150,000 = x
I was doing this in 5th grade, but these MORONS couldn't even get this SIMPLE math right. I tried to correct tham. Twice. Then I shut up, since their error lowered the award I thought should be $0 anyway.
.
Don't even get me started on my 3rd jury duty. Undercover Cop had audio and video of the defendant selling him drugs on 6 out of 7 occasions (the first time they weren't recording as the UC was just supposed to meet the guy, but the guy was so eager to sell, he sold to the UC that time too.) They have video of him walking away counting the money, smiling. The defense ADMITTED the defendant handed over drugs for money on each occasion. Their only defense? 'AGENCY'- the man wasn't 'selling' drugs to the UC, he was 'purchasing drugs FOR the UC', as his 'agent'. Of course, the defendant seem to already have the drugs the UC wanted on hand, and the video of him counting the money, smiling, implies he was making a profit (making a profit from either side means he no longer met the legal definition of an 'agent'). Oh- and he'd been to jail 2 time before for... you guessed it, dealing drugs.
There was one minor marijuana charge w
He must type slow; there were 2 minutes between the post explaining what 'ex parte' means and his two-line query.
I consider taking other peoples work for free and distributing it to be deeply immoral
So do I. It's definately immoral to 'take' someone's work.
Copying, on the other hand....
Its a big money making scam, dressed up as some sort of 'stick it to the man' bullshit.
You're just jealous you didn't think of it first.
I want them to obey the fucking law and pay for content like honest people.
Law =/= Right
Legal =/= Honest
people using the pirate bay are just too tight assed to pay for their entertainment like everyone else
There are a ton of arguments I could make here, but I'm sure you'd just ignore them all. But let me list a few:
1) Seeing a movie in the theater costs a lot. Depending on how many people are going, snacks, babysitter, transportation, etc, it could run more for one movie than people budget for food for the week. So, those people CANNOT AFFORD to see that movie. There is no way the MPAA would be getting any of their money, because they cannot afford to pay. Since the MPAA ain't getting no money nohow, there is no loss if the person Downloads the movie.
2) Movies are increasingly crappy. It's nice to be able to see a (admittedly low-quality) copy of the movie to see if you WANT to go see it in the theater (or buy on dvd).
3) Most, if not all, the stuff I download (hypothetically, of course) is NOT first-run movies. I (hypothetically) download TV series, older movies, anime, etc. TV series? Older Movies? Guess what- these are shown FREE over the airwaves on TV!!! The only differences are:
1) Poorer quality.
2) No ads.
3) Convenience.
Since I would channel-surf during the ads anyway (or get up to get a snack, or go to the bathrom), #2 is irrelevent- I would not watch the ads in any case. The poorer quality might very well lead me to actually BUY the DVD(s) (assuming it is available!). But the biggest difference is #3- Convenience. I can watch the episode/movie I want to watch , when I want to watch it. I can pause, stop, jump back and forth if I wish. This is a BIG 'plus' for me, and does not affect the MPAA (or whoever) whatsoever.
So: Downloading does NOT negatively affect the producers if you are downloading stuff that is free-over-the-air.
If it was made by someone else and has a price, and you take it without paying, it's theft.
True.
But, if it was made by someone else and has a price, and you COPY it without paying, it's Copyright infringment.
You may call it a "pedantic argument", but that's the whole point: if it was 'theft', then they would charge file sharers with "theft". But they don't, do they?
Actually, it'd become illegal to forward ANY packets- Those 1's and 0's could be a (miniscule) part of a copyrighted work.
So, they searched for child porn, didn't find any, but did find mis-labeled torrents, spam, and malware.
So, they searched for child porn, didn't find any, but did find mis-labeled torrents, spam, and malware.
And it's obvious that many people feel it is NOT worthwhile.
Also, the extremely vague things you noted (situations that allow warrantless searches, pen register provisions which allow warrantless call logging, and large volumes of security cameras) were around long before 9/11 and long before Bush
Yes, before 9/11 there were circumstance in which the police could search without a warrant. And even then it was being abused. Now, there are MANY MORE circumstances where police have that power.
Yes, there were pen registers before 9/11. But now, they are talking about forcing ISPs to log ALL traffic.
Yes, there were security cameras before 9/11. But now they are planning on covering an entire CITY. They already have done so in other countries (Airstrip One... er, England).
An analogy often used is 'Drop a frog in boiling water, it'll hop right out. But drop a frog in cold water and gradually turn up the heat, and it'll boil to death'. This is obviously not true. BUT, if you were to slow the increase in temperature so that it spanned generations, you would slowly evolve a frog that was comfortable in high temperature water. (Look at anti-bacterial resistant bacteria for another example.)
And that is what is happening here. Every new generation will grow up with a few more cameras, a few more 'security measures', AND THEY WILL ACCEPT THEM AS THE WAY THINGS ARE. When they see one more camera go up, it'll be "just one more, no big deal". When THEIR kids grow up, they'll be used to the increased surveillance; it will be 'normal' for them, so when they see ANOTHER camera go up, it'll again be "just one more, no big deal".
Just like each generation of frogs grows up in temerature that's "just one degree higher, no big deal".
.
When I think about it, I'm almost sorry I have kids. They'll experience less and less Freedom, more and more surveillance, more and more (useless) 'security'.
And the worst part is, since they have nothing to compare to, they won't even miss it.
What was the quote?
It's been a lot longer than 20 years....
1) Where did you hear he assaulted a librarian?
2) He was told to produce ID or leave. He refused to produce ID. The Kampus Kops called the real cops, and when they got there, HE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF LEAVING THE LIBRARY. That's right- he was given the choice to show ID or leave, so he was leaving. Then the cops GRABBED him even though he was following the instructions (show id or LEAVE). They handcuffed him THEN tasered him several times.
And you defend them?