This gets more warped. It would likely be illlegal to produce certain data on EU citizens like this according to EU privacy directive.
I've never heard of a privacy law that doesn't have an exemption for court ordered production of documents. Generally speaking, complying with a court order is an absolute defense against otherwise unlawful activity. (There may be extreme exceptions, in cases of war crimes, genocide etc., such as the Nazis engaged in.)
How can any nation grant right over something outside its sovereignty?
It happens all the time right here on earth: fishing rights, offshore drilling rights, shipwreck recovery rights, etc. It's nothing new. There are laws and treaties that cover all kinds of extra-territorial stuff. Why should space be any different?
So, when a Republican does something bad, it's because they're a Republican (further reinforcing the notion that Republicans are "bad".) When a Democrat does something bad, it's because they're acting Republican (further reinforcing the notion that Republicans are "bad".)
Although that is true, there are also many states that have laws on the books regarding police officers "moonlighting" since so many of them got caught double dipping claiming their police salary at the same time they were working their security stint.
I think you missed the point of my post. I'm not talking about city police officers moonlighting, I'm talking about officers working for private companies as their only job. As I said in my post, you don't have to work for a police department to be a police officer.
Emacs is my editor of choice. As for language, I use whatever best suits the task at hand, most frequently: Perl, Ruby, Java, C, and JavaScript. And if I'm customizing emacs, I use lisp.
> Last I heard private security does NOT have the same powers as police. Not even close.
Unless they ARE police.
Believe it or not, this situation is less uncommon than you might think, and not exactly new.
This is quite correct. You don't have to be working for a public police department to be a police officer. All you need is to be deputized, which usually involves passing some sort of exam and then getting a letter signed by some controlling police agency (usually state or municipal). There are many examples. As the parent pointed out, campus police at most universities work this way. Some high schools also have police officers on salary, and some private business which accommodate a large public population (eg. shopping malls, etc.) may employ deputized police officers for security. They have largely the same arrest powers that ordinary police officers do, so for example you could be charged with resisting arrest if you try to run away from them when they stop you, etc. It is a big mistake to assume that you don't have to do what they tell you just because they are working for a private company rather than the city or state.
By jamming their phones, drivers are more likely to look down at their phones wondering why the hell their calls isn't going through, making them MORE likely to cause an accident.
An accident which wouldn't have occurred if the driver weren't using the cell phone while driving in the first place! Don't try to shift the blame here. This guy is just trying to make the roads safer; he got no personal or financial benefit by operating this jammer. His motives were good, even if his methods were a bit extreme.
It's only a crime if you're suborning a specific instance of perjury. If I write a book saying that people should lie on the witness stand all the time, that isn't a crime. In fact there have been books written on how to be a hit man (The Death Dealers Manual). It isn't a crime to publish such a book since it doesn't advocate a specific instance of murder, but just instructs how to do it in general.
It won't stop until the DoJ actually starts handing out serious penalties instead of a slap on the wrist for this sort of behavior. I'm talking jail time.
It's only illegal if they counseled the cops to do this in a specific case. If they just told the cops that's what they should do in general, then it isn't a crime.
They want to have the authority to regulate apps that after release have been linked to "safety related issues" that have an intended purpose of being used primarily while driving on a road.
Ultimately though, they only have the authority to regulate what features are sold in cars as they leave the factory (this power derives from the Interstate Commerce Clause). It's up to state governments to set the rules of the road and penalize drivers for breaking those rules. As to whether or not the Constitution allows them the authority to regulate apps isn't so clear. If they are sold commercially in interstate commerce, then they might have such authority, but there might also be First Amendment issues as software has been classified by at least some courts as a form of protected speech. And I'm not sure how freeware would fit into all this. Personally, I think it would be best if the NHTSA stuck to offering guidelines and leave it up to the states to pass the actual laws.
Seriously how often do you think people sit around thinking about the size of their dick?
Quite frequently, if they're anything like me. For me it goes something like this: if I've been looking in the mirror on a cold, winter day, I'm usually kind of depressed, cause I wish it were bigger. But if it's a particularly warm day, or if I just got out of a hot shower, I think "AWESOME. That looks great!" and I can't wait to head for the nude beach. I imagine most guys have similar thoughts even if not as frequently as I do. But it has nothing to do with guns, so I guess I agree with your basic point.
I swear we need to define a new logical fallacy revolving around this.
By this logic, a mugger is less scary than a police officer, because a police officer has legal authority to arrest you. News flash: people do not need legal authority to fuck you over.
Well, if private credit agencies had a tendency to show up at my doorstep, point a gun in my face, and order me to hand over my credit records, then I'd say you had a good point.
Wait, you're saying government "has" a "tendency" to "show up at my doorstep, point a gun in my face, and order me to hand over my credit records?"
Paranoid hyperbole much?
Obviously, I was referring to the mugger. Did you even read what I was responding to?
By this logic, a mugger is less scary than a police officer, because a police officer has legal authority to arrest you. News flash: people do not need legal authority to fuck you over.
Well, if private credit agencies had a tendency to show up at my doorstep, point a gun in my face, and order me to hand over my credit records, then I'd say you had a good point.
As opposed to the private credit rating agencies that have all your personal credit information with zero transparency and accountability?
I'd rather this be in the public sphere where hopefully the agency has my interests at heart, rather than some private, for profit corporation.
From the article:
As many as 227 million Americans may be compelled to disclose intimate details of their families and financial lives
The key difference is that private credit rating agencies don't have the legal authority to compel you to provide them with any information. They might use some underhanded means to obtain some of that information, but they can't send you to prison for not telling them what they want to know. The government, however, does have that power. It is the powers of compulsion, not the database itself, which has me worried.
Wow, you Republicans are getting more brazen. Creating a system where the poor can't afford to sue because they may have to pay for the other guy's legal costs means that only the rich would be able to afford to defend themselves.
But the poor would only have to pay if they LOSE. If they have a legit lawsuit, that wouldn't be an issue.
what's the difference between highly illegal, and illegal? Besides, what is so illegal about changing a registry key or value, or creating a registry key?
Changing a registry key in and of itself isn't illegal. But doing so to misrepresent that you paid for something you didn't, and obtaining that something through the Internet violates at least two federal laws: wire fraud and the computer fraud and abuse act. You are gaining access to software hosted on a computer that don't rightfully have access to (computer fraud and abuse act), and you are causing false information to be sent on the Internet for financial gain (wire fraud). Both are federal felonies. In addition, you are probably committing several civil infractions including copyright violation and violation of license agreements. If you want to keep getting updates from Microsoft for XP you can pay for them like everyone else.
Your phrasing makes it sound like it's voluntary. Mentally ill people are often unable to make choices because of their illness, and so as a result, it's not a choice, it's just doing enough to get by.
True, also mentally ill people often have trouble getting good jobs if any jobs at all. Many live on government assistance and are well below the poverty line. And it is well known that poverty is correlated with a shorter lifespan. Many simply cannot afford healthy lifestyle choices, such as nutritious food or preventive medical care.
I'm not really sure I see where R fits, though. For basic statistical work, SPSS is good.
It's good if you have the money. R is free, while SPSS is fairly expensive, as is its main competitor SAS. I see R as competing not with general purpose languages like Python, but rather with commercial statistics packages like SPSS and SAS. While it may have more of a learning curve than these packages, it is free software, which makes it very attractive for many users.
Yep. In fact Tennessee's governor just signed a bill bringing back mandatory electrocutions when the lethal injection drugs that are proven to work are unavailable.
.... that somebody finally found a commercially viable application of 3D printing?...
How many people would be ready to pay for a decent-quality figurine of themselves? Especially so at a special event involving costumes.
Well, that was the subject of an episode of the Big Bang Theory, but to be honest, I think what's going to sell 3D printers is the ability to print sex toys that people are to embarrassed to buy at the store.
Shouldn't they be concentrating on turning Americans into decent people instead?
There's no reason they can't do both. Things they learn from this experiment may indeed some day be used to improve the human race. (Don't know why you specifically pick on Americans though.)
Suing programmers for their creation is a very bad practice. As code is a form of speech, denying someone a freedom of it is against a democratic constitution.
The First Amendment free speech protections don't cover copyright violation, and it's Blizzard's position that this software is a derivative work of their software, and therefore infringes on their copyright. Whether it is or not is up to the courts to decide, but this isn't a free speech issue.
Slashdot Mirror
This gets more warped. It would likely be illlegal to produce certain data on EU citizens like this according to EU privacy directive.
I've never heard of a privacy law that doesn't have an exemption for court ordered production of documents. Generally speaking, complying with a court order is an absolute defense against otherwise unlawful activity. (There may be extreme exceptions, in cases of war crimes, genocide etc., such as the Nazis engaged in.)
How can any nation grant right over something outside its sovereignty?
It happens all the time right here on earth: fishing rights, offshore drilling rights, shipwreck recovery rights, etc. It's nothing new. There are laws and treaties that cover all kinds of extra-territorial stuff. Why should space be any different?
As close as you can be without the title.
So, when a Republican does something bad, it's because they're a Republican (further reinforcing the notion that Republicans are "bad".) When a Democrat does something bad, it's because they're acting Republican (further reinforcing the notion that Republicans are "bad".)
Although that is true, there are also many states that have laws on the books regarding police officers "moonlighting" since so many of them got caught double dipping claiming their police salary at the same time they were working their security stint.
I think you missed the point of my post. I'm not talking about city police officers moonlighting, I'm talking about officers working for private companies as their only job. As I said in my post, you don't have to work for a police department to be a police officer.
Emacs is my editor of choice. As for language, I use whatever best suits the task at hand, most frequently: Perl, Ruby, Java, C, and JavaScript. And if I'm customizing emacs, I use lisp.
They don't give you a Purple Heart for shooting yourself in the foot.
When did it become popular to hate on Perl on Slashdot? I thought Slashdot itself was written in Perl.
> Last I heard private security does NOT have the same powers as police. Not even close.
Unless they ARE police.
Believe it or not, this situation is less uncommon than you might think, and not exactly new.
This is quite correct. You don't have to be working for a public police department to be a police officer. All you need is to be deputized, which usually involves passing some sort of exam and then getting a letter signed by some controlling police agency (usually state or municipal). There are many examples. As the parent pointed out, campus police at most universities work this way. Some high schools also have police officers on salary, and some private business which accommodate a large public population (eg. shopping malls, etc.) may employ deputized police officers for security. They have largely the same arrest powers that ordinary police officers do, so for example you could be charged with resisting arrest if you try to run away from them when they stop you, etc. It is a big mistake to assume that you don't have to do what they tell you just because they are working for a private company rather than the city or state.
We barely avoided this catastrophe!
No thanks to Obama.
And if he drove past an accident and interrupted a 911 call? Man fuck you.
There's no reason to think he wouldn't have turned off the jammer if he saw an accident.
By jamming their phones, drivers are more likely to look down at their phones wondering why the hell their calls isn't going through, making them MORE likely to cause an accident.
An accident which wouldn't have occurred if the driver weren't using the cell phone while driving in the first place! Don't try to shift the blame here. This guy is just trying to make the roads safer; he got no personal or financial benefit by operating this jammer. His motives were good, even if his methods were a bit extreme.
This is called suborning perjury and is a crime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
It's only a crime if you're suborning a specific instance of perjury. If I write a book saying that people should lie on the witness stand all the time, that isn't a crime. In fact there have been books written on how to be a hit man (The Death Dealers Manual). It isn't a crime to publish such a book since it doesn't advocate a specific instance of murder, but just instructs how to do it in general.
It won't stop until the DoJ actually starts handing out serious penalties instead of a slap on the wrist for this sort of behavior. I'm talking jail time.
It's only illegal if they counseled the cops to do this in a specific case. If they just told the cops that's what they should do in general, then it isn't a crime.
They want to have the authority to regulate apps that after release have been linked to "safety related issues" that have an intended purpose of being used primarily while driving on a road.
Ultimately though, they only have the authority to regulate what features are sold in cars as they leave the factory (this power derives from the Interstate Commerce Clause). It's up to state governments to set the rules of the road and penalize drivers for breaking those rules. As to whether or not the Constitution allows them the authority to regulate apps isn't so clear. If they are sold commercially in interstate commerce, then they might have such authority, but there might also be First Amendment issues as software has been classified by at least some courts as a form of protected speech. And I'm not sure how freeware would fit into all this. Personally, I think it would be best if the NHTSA stuck to offering guidelines and leave it up to the states to pass the actual laws.
Seriously how often do you think people sit around thinking about the size of their dick?
Quite frequently, if they're anything like me. For me it goes something like this: if I've been looking in the mirror on a cold, winter day, I'm usually kind of depressed, cause I wish it were bigger. But if it's a particularly warm day, or if I just got out of a hot shower, I think "AWESOME. That looks great!" and I can't wait to head for the nude beach. I imagine most guys have similar thoughts even if not as frequently as I do. But it has nothing to do with guns, so I guess I agree with your basic point.
I swear we need to define a new logical fallacy revolving around this.
I guess it would be called a "phallacy".
By this logic, a mugger is less scary than a police officer, because a police officer has legal authority to arrest you. News flash: people do not need legal authority to fuck you over.
Well, if private credit agencies had a tendency to show up at my doorstep, point a gun in my face, and order me to hand over my credit records, then I'd say you had a good point.
Wait, you're saying government "has" a "tendency" to "show up at my doorstep, point a gun in my face, and order me to hand over my credit records?"
Paranoid hyperbole much?
Obviously, I was referring to the mugger. Did you even read what I was responding to?
By this logic, a mugger is less scary than a police officer, because a police officer has legal authority to arrest you. News flash: people do not need legal authority to fuck you over.
Well, if private credit agencies had a tendency to show up at my doorstep, point a gun in my face, and order me to hand over my credit records, then I'd say you had a good point.
As opposed to the private credit rating agencies that have all your personal credit information with zero transparency and accountability?
I'd rather this be in the public sphere where hopefully the agency has my interests at heart, rather than some private, for profit corporation.
From the article:
As many as 227 million Americans may be compelled to disclose intimate details of their families and financial lives
The key difference is that private credit rating agencies don't have the legal authority to compel you to provide them with any information. They might use some underhanded means to obtain some of that information, but they can't send you to prison for not telling them what they want to know. The government, however, does have that power. It is the powers of compulsion, not the database itself, which has me worried.
Wow, you Republicans are getting more brazen. Creating a system where the poor can't afford to sue because they may have to pay for the other guy's legal costs means that only the rich would be able to afford to defend themselves.
But the poor would only have to pay if they LOSE. If they have a legit lawsuit, that wouldn't be an issue.
what's the difference between highly illegal, and illegal? Besides, what is so illegal about changing a registry key or value, or creating a registry key?
Changing a registry key in and of itself isn't illegal. But doing so to misrepresent that you paid for something you didn't, and obtaining that something through the Internet violates at least two federal laws: wire fraud and the computer fraud and abuse act. You are gaining access to software hosted on a computer that don't rightfully have access to (computer fraud and abuse act), and you are causing false information to be sent on the Internet for financial gain (wire fraud). Both are federal felonies. In addition, you are probably committing several civil infractions including copyright violation and violation of license agreements. If you want to keep getting updates from Microsoft for XP you can pay for them like everyone else.
Your phrasing makes it sound like it's voluntary. Mentally ill people are often unable to make choices because of their illness, and so as a result, it's not a choice, it's just doing enough to get by.
True, also mentally ill people often have trouble getting good jobs if any jobs at all. Many live on government assistance and are well below the poverty line. And it is well known that poverty is correlated with a shorter lifespan. Many simply cannot afford healthy lifestyle choices, such as nutritious food or preventive medical care.
I'm not really sure I see where R fits, though. For basic statistical work, SPSS is good.
It's good if you have the money. R is free, while SPSS is fairly expensive, as is its main competitor SAS. I see R as competing not with general purpose languages like Python, but rather with commercial statistics packages like SPSS and SAS. While it may have more of a learning curve than these packages, it is free software, which makes it very attractive for many users.
Yep. In fact Tennessee's governor just signed a bill bringing back mandatory electrocutions when the lethal injection drugs that are proven to work are unavailable.
.... that somebody finally found a commercially viable application of 3D printing?...
How many people would be ready to pay for a decent-quality figurine of themselves? Especially so at a special event involving costumes.
Well, that was the subject of an episode of the Big Bang Theory, but to be honest, I think what's going to sell 3D printers is the ability to print sex toys that people are to embarrassed to buy at the store.
Shouldn't they be concentrating on turning Americans into decent people instead?
There's no reason they can't do both. Things they learn from this experiment may indeed some day be used to improve the human race. (Don't know why you specifically pick on Americans though.)
Suing programmers for their creation is a very bad practice. As code is a form of speech, denying someone a freedom of it is against a democratic constitution.
The First Amendment free speech protections don't cover copyright violation, and it's Blizzard's position that this software is a derivative work of their software, and therefore infringes on their copyright. Whether it is or not is up to the courts to decide, but this isn't a free speech issue.