Sure, it's a tragedy, but the answer isn't to throw away our rights to privacy - if we did that, there'd still be kids getting exploited and the customs agents and cops would be snooping around anything they felt like looking at.
What we need is another ammendment that extends the protections of the bill of rights to anywhere under the control/power of the US (so they can't claim that the customs line isn't US territory) or their agents (so extraordinary rendition is prima facia illegal). That, and actually applying the 4th/14th to property seizure.
Well you should have. That's the expensive part. If I'm in an office building and I can double the backhaul capacity with a transceiver upgrade, that's much cheaper than rewiring, which is messy, expensive, and time consuming.
The most specious argument along these lines is the one that if we didn't drop cases where the police really screw up, they'd have no incentive to not break the rules to get evidence. Excuse me? Anyone who believes that stupid line hasn't been paying attention, nor do they give two shits about the victim's right to justice. So what if another party screwed up? The fact is, the person still committed a crime against a private citizen.
How would you know? The whole point is that by breaking the rules, you've destroyed the credibility of the evidence. It's perfectly reasonable to let guilty men go free so we don't lock up the innocent.
This is slashdot - I'm not going to struggle endlessly with a problem largely not my own so I look smart in a post. Sure, you need more of a plan than killing the bad guy at the top, and you have to let the Nigerians clean their own house, but this isn't something I can credibly plan and execute, so why go in depth?
Not nearly. What's needed is leadership after the bastards in charge are against a wall. But first you have to take out the trash. Yeah, and the africans will probably have to move the borders around - the current ones are externally imposed. One more step towards post colonial functional countries.
don't ask, don't tell? Remember, we're also talking about employers deciding that you can't smoke at all, or maybe that you shouldn't drink ever. If they don't bring that stuff into work, it's not the employer's business, even if they post it online.
If the babysitter doesn't shoot up in front of the kids, who cares? By the same token, it's nobody's business what I do for fun, least of all my boss'.
He waited until halfway through the paragraph to say that - looks sort of deceptive to me. Anyway, he's railing against the 2% of sex offenders (sort of), but couching it so it looks like it applies to all of them. Incoherent is how I'd describe it.
Trust me, life in prison is a compromise compared to what I think they should really get. You don't help a rabid dog; you put it down. The same should hold for anyone who sexually abuses children. I'm not talking about the 20 year old/15 year old thing. I mean the real sexual predators.
Is there a thought in that emotional tirade? We're talking about sex offenders, which includes rapists, kiddie diddlers, and the guy who peed on a wall and got caught. The question of what to do with the various people in that broad classification is irrelevant to the discussion: how does it make sense to ban sex offenders from the internet? Sure, if the guy solicited sex in a chat room, ban him from chat rooms where a child could be present, but even if it's someone who abducted a child from the mall and raped them, what does that have to do with the internet? This is just another attempt to cut this group of bogeymen completely out of society.
Well, my bittorrent client allows limits to be implemented based on TOD, so that allows me to limit my usage during peak times while still running fast when noone's on. Since that's the main consumer of continuous bandwidth, it's a good proxy for limiting usage overall.
What's wrong with storing CC info? They had a valid business case for it, as does my employer. How would you handle charge on ship with preorders/backorders?
If a mechanic changes a motor, they damn skippy don't offer the old one.
Says who? They're required to do so.
If Apple changed just the platter, they could offer that, but that's not how drives are changed. The entire drive mechanism and electronics is changed.
Since the guy owned the drive and paid full price + labor for the new drive, how is it even Apple's to offer? If I get my brakes replaced, I still own the old brakes.
Even IF Apple (or anyone) offered the old drive back, the information has already passed through their hands, and so should be considered compromised.
This does, however, limit the scope of the breach.
Shocking that consumers who typically don't see the contract until the very end of the purchasing process, and typically receive a copy of their 10-page contract, written in highly technical legal language on a tiny, folded piece of paper in a 3 point font don't know what they're getting into.
You still have to read the copy you've signed to make sure it's the same copy; my contract was 10-12 pt and fairly plain.
And if they read and can understand the contract, they find that the terms are non-negotiable, require that you agree to waive right to sue in court, and allow the vendor to arbitrarily change the contract.
Slashdot Mirror
How about getting a 9 cell battery and replacing 8 cells with petn?
Sort of makes you wonder what the point is - flexing muscles to see if anyone cockblocks them?
Sure, it's a tragedy, but the answer isn't to throw away our rights to privacy - if we did that, there'd still be kids getting exploited and the customs agents and cops would be snooping around anything they felt like looking at.
What we need is another ammendment that extends the protections of the bill of rights to anywhere under the control/power of the US (so they can't claim that the customs line isn't US territory) or their agents (so extraordinary rendition is prima facia illegal). That, and actually applying the 4th/14th to property seizure.
"Other than murdering dozens, Jim Jones was a pretty decent guy"
I said -nothing- about physical wires.
Well you should have. That's the expensive part. If I'm in an office building and I can double the backhaul capacity with a transceiver upgrade, that's much cheaper than rewiring, which is messy, expensive, and time consuming.
The most specious argument along these lines is the one that if we didn't drop cases where the police really screw up, they'd have no incentive to not break the rules to get evidence. Excuse me? Anyone who believes that stupid line hasn't been paying attention, nor do they give two shits about the victim's right to justice. So what if another party screwed up? The fact is, the person still committed a crime against a private citizen.
How would you know? The whole point is that by breaking the rules, you've destroyed the credibility of the evidence. It's perfectly reasonable to let guilty men go free so we don't lock up the innocent.
Yeah, you can refuse searches and they can't do much, but if they tell you to get out, you gotta go.
And Paris Hilton is important to whom, low budget porn producers?
This is slashdot - I'm not going to struggle endlessly with a problem largely not my own so I look smart in a post. Sure, you need more of a plan than killing the bad guy at the top, and you have to let the Nigerians clean their own house, but this isn't something I can credibly plan and execute, so why go in depth?
Just the ones at the top. Or do you actually think Mugabe is a good leader? How about whoever's currently looting Nigeria?
Not nearly. What's needed is leadership after the bastards in charge are against a wall. But first you have to take out the trash. Yeah, and the africans will probably have to move the borders around - the current ones are externally imposed. One more step towards post colonial functional countries.
don't ask, don't tell? Remember, we're also talking about employers deciding that you can't smoke at all, or maybe that you shouldn't drink ever. If they don't bring that stuff into work, it's not the employer's business, even if they post it online.
If the babysitter doesn't shoot up in front of the kids, who cares? By the same token, it's nobody's business what I do for fun, least of all my boss'.
He waited until halfway through the paragraph to say that - looks sort of deceptive to me. Anyway, he's railing against the 2% of sex offenders (sort of), but couching it so it looks like it applies to all of them. Incoherent is how I'd describe it.
Trust me, life in prison is a compromise compared to what I think they should really get. You don't help a rabid dog; you put it down. The same should hold for anyone who sexually abuses children. I'm not talking about the 20 year old/15 year old thing. I mean the real sexual predators.
Is there a thought in that emotional tirade? We're talking about sex offenders, which includes rapists, kiddie diddlers, and the guy who peed on a wall and got caught. The question of what to do with the various people in that broad classification is irrelevant to the discussion: how does it make sense to ban sex offenders from the internet? Sure, if the guy solicited sex in a chat room, ban him from chat rooms where a child could be present, but even if it's someone who abducted a child from the mall and raped them, what does that have to do with the internet? This is just another attempt to cut this group of bogeymen completely out of society.
Well, my bittorrent client allows limits to be implemented based on TOD, so that allows me to limit my usage during peak times while still running fast when noone's on. Since that's the main consumer of continuous bandwidth, it's a good proxy for limiting usage overall.
You just can't educate some people.
What's wrong with storing CC info? They had a valid business case for it, as does my employer. How would you handle charge on ship with preorders/backorders?
If a mechanic changes a motor, they damn skippy don't offer the old one.
Says who? They're required to do so.
If Apple changed just the platter, they could offer that, but that's not how drives are changed. The entire drive mechanism and electronics is changed.
Since the guy owned the drive and paid full price + labor for the new drive, how is it even Apple's to offer? If I get my brakes replaced, I still own the old brakes.
Even IF Apple (or anyone) offered the old drive back, the information has already passed through their hands, and so should be considered compromised.
This does, however, limit the scope of the breach.
Not if you don't save the password for the volume on a keyring.
But first, you politely threaten to go there to successively higher levels of management. up to and including the board of directors.
No, you start by complaining to the BOD or CEO, but offer a resolution that doesn't require court and can be handed to a subordinate.
Shocking that consumers who typically don't see the contract until the very end of the purchasing process, and typically receive a copy of their 10-page contract, written in highly technical legal language on a tiny, folded piece of paper in a 3 point font don't know what they're getting into.
You still have to read the copy you've signed to make sure it's the same copy; my contract was 10-12 pt and fairly plain.
And if they read and can understand the contract, they find that the terms are non-negotiable, require that you agree to waive right to sue in court, and allow the vendor to arbitrarily change the contract.
We still talking about mortgages?
Well, if it's random pop music, of course it sounds awful. How many people pirate Info Society compared to Kfed?
You still haven't addressed the central problem: you can't get a goddamn job if you live in france and have the wrong sort of name.
Um, how is that more secure from tampering?