This should at most have earned a "Funny", or is there something I'm missing here?
Yeah, I think you missed:
Equivocation - \E*quiv`o*ca"tion\, n. The use of expressions susceptible of a double signification, with a purpose to mislead boneheaded moderators, especially when you are just making a joke.
The technical differences between a warrant and a subpoena aside, it's still the government demanding access to information they would not otherwise have. Allowing subpoenas of third-party recordings of conversations, especially those which neither party in the conversation may be aware of, is in my opinion, side-stepping the wiretap laws requiring warrants to record the conversation in the first place.
I think you maybe misunderstand either the wiretap laws or how these particular SMSs were acquired. Judges issue warrants for wiretaps. They decide if there is probable cause that discussions about illegal activities are taking place.
A judge issued the subpoena for these SMSs. If they were in a situation needing a warrant to get them, a judge *could* have issued a warrant in compliance with wiretap laws. It seems like when you talk about "the government" getting access to these messages, you are equivocating the judge with the prosecutor. Wiretap laws limit prosecutors. Judges just administer the laws. Limitations on permissibility of evidence are *only* there to protect a defendant from abusive searches, including listening on phone conversations. The fact is that the defense probably requested these messages. There is *no* Constitutional abuse here. In fact, it is supporting the spirit of Amendment VI by allowing Bryant to get access to evidence in his defense.
Not that you are necessarily guilty of this, but for some reason the general public believes it has this Constitutional right to privacy in all kinds of places where they *don't* have it. If you have said one thing in court, but there is evidence that you said something contradictory elsewhere, justice demands that the court gives access to it. If Bryant's accuser is lying, and these SMSs show it, she doesn't have a Constitutional right to keep them private.
In this particular case, it is probably not an abuse of privacy, but the greater question is whether or not the government should be able to subpoena recordings of conversations that they did not have the legal right to record at the time the conversation happened. SMS messages are viewed by the user as a private conversation. Because they can be intercepted, the user should be careful what he says. That's just common sense. But the ability to intercept the communication does not give the government the right to intercept it. That's why we have wiretap laws. If the government would need a warrant to intercept the communication as it happens, they shouldn't be able to subpoena a third party recording of the conversation after it happens.
I see the point you are making, because it can make it look like an illegal search of sorts. But we don't know if this was illegally preserved. It may have been allowed under her service agreement. They usually give the service providers a lot of latitude.
As for the need of a warrant, the subpoena for the messages is similar to a warrant. Both are issued by judges. Subpoenas tell the party to cough it up while warrants allow the cops to go get it. If it was a warrant, they would have probable cause to get it.
More importantly, in criminal cases, courts ought to have every right allowed by the Constitution to require evidence that might exonerate someone. There is no Constitutional provision at issue here. Illegal search and seizure would be it, if any, but like I said, this was a subpoena, not a warrant.
While others here correctly pointed out that an SMS is more like a postcard instead of a sealed FedEx package, another important point is that the *judge ordered the SMS messages for his review*.
This is important because the messages wouldn't have been available to just anyone, except that a judge found the evidence potentially important to finding the truth. A judge could also order that FedEx package opened, and it would be justified if it helped discover the truth in a case. It's also important to note that, for now, the only person reading these SMS messages is the judge himself, so he can decide if they are relevant. If they are, he turns them over to the lawyers so they can use them or prepare to argue against them. If they really aren't relevant, no one else will get to see them.
Well, I am wasting some mod points I spent here, but it's worth it just to tell you to use your imagination. I mean, why the heck can't you control your server from your laptop? There are several ways for doing this, no matter your platform.
Forgive me for being rude, but the LAME thing here is your quickness at dismissing it. It is a pretty cool product for the price.
Some of the voice actors on the Simpsons have done pretty well as screen actors, the most prominent being Hank Azaria. If you look at the Simpson's IMDB page you can see that most of the others have done a lot of significant voice work on unrelated, but successful stuff.
Not that I don't think the actors are entitled to a bigger share of such a successful show. Voice work of a particular person is never the same when imitated by someone else. I know I really miss Jim Henson. Kermit and the others have never sounded the same.
It funny you see it this way, because I see buying this DVD player as an act of good parenting.
As far as the imagination of kids achieving the same violent graphic images some adults come up with, I have to wonder if you have, or even know, any young children to think that. The only kids I know capable of that kind of imagination are the ones who have already been exposed to it. Your point that you probably shouldn't have kids watch those kind of movies, even with filters, is a good one. Still, there are a few redeemable movies that come down on the line that I would like my boys to see when they are old enough. This idea is good for that.
Frankly, I am baffled anyone could be bothered by this. No one is making you buy the thing. Why would anyone care if other people choose not to watch what they watch?
Alright, AC, I will take your post as the paragon for lack of bias. So now when I argue with Apple's claims (which appears to be the only thing I can do if I am unbiased), I will leave out the actual ship dates of AMD machines from vendors, which came after the G5 shipped.
If I build my own AMD system that predates the G5, I will fail to mention that I built it or obtained it through some other arrangement. I will also assume that any Joe Shmoe can install and run his own 64-bit linux system *after* building it himself. Oh, and I'll make sure to accuse Apple of claiming the first 64-bit laptop, even though someone else shipped them first and there is no actual indication Apple is going to make such a claim.
I will also generate a bunch of self-serving definitions about what a "personal computer" is when everyone really knows that the general public did not have a 64-bit system that they could buy, take home, and plug in until the G5 shipped. This is home (aka personal) use we are talking about and the fact that Apple's ad shows a guy *at home* should clue people like NAB into that. Don't worry. In my lack of bias you won't hear me pointing that out.
Finally, when I talk about the arguments of someone who disagrees with my position, like As the Apple Turns, I will make sure to assume their name is the indication of their lack of intelligence rather than a tounge-in-cheek reference to the Apple rumor mill.
As an FYI, my understanding is the EU *still* isn't importing hormone-enhanced beef. The WTO just allowed the US and Canada to issue retaliatory tariffs. This article has lots of information about the trade fights that have been going on for the last number of years.
I am a BYU student and while we are no MIT, our science programs certainly aren't slouches. My brother is a Chem E PhD candidate here working on nano-sized batteries. He isn't the only person in the world doing it, nor is he making earth-shattering advancements, but he is contributing to the field. Like most LDS people, he has a career in which he wants to do good things. Wikipedia says some higher education mag ranked it as the best place to turn research dollars into inventions.
Two other questions: Why would a religious affiliation make you think BYU's achievements are suspect? That seems a bit presumptuous to me, I guess. Secondly (not that you aren't a generally insightful person), but why in the world did you get an "Underrated" mod? (I guess that is a rhetorical question.)
That *is also* how the law works. IAALS (I am a law student), and one of the most fundamental principles of property law in the US is that in almost every case, your rights to property are only as good as the rights of the person you got the property from. The exclusions to this rule are very narrow, and EB doesn't even come close. If you buy stolen goods, your rights to the goods are only as good as the theif's, even if you buy the goods not knowing they were stolen.
Even if EB had waited the necessary time to sell the goods, that doesn't mean that EB had the *right* to sell the goods. It just meant that they wouldn't have violated that particular law. EB can sue the thief. The victim can sue both. Although I am sickened by frivolously litigious people, the legal system really does protect people like her. In court, EB would get kicked around for this kind of behavior.
You know its interesting that Utah Mormons may be more gullible than the general population (a point your linked website makes). It would probably be a good idea for Mormon leaders to try to prevent this. This doesn't prove the grandparent's post, though. For example, did proportion of Mormon scam artists mirror the proportion of Mormons in the general population? Basically I agree that gullible people attract dishonest people. I don't think that the grandparent's post was making that point, though.
By the way, what's with that website? Do they really consider Mormons a cult?
Man, I am really sorry you think this about people. To be honest, I doubt the authority of what you are saying. I lived for a total of 8 years in Montana and have never even heard of a primarily Mormon community. I also lived in Idaho, San Diego, and live in Utah right now. I have *never* heard a Mormon refer to a non-Mormon as a "Gentile". Tell me the truth, have you? Also, have you *actually* ever been screwed over by a Mormon? Do you know it was because you aren't Mormon or was he/she just a bad person?
My point is that even if you can answer these questions with real personal experiences, you are still stating a fairly bigoted position. Can you prove otherwise with some *reasonable*, complete evidence? I am very curious for my own knowledge.
I don't know the statue you're referring to, but I think it faces that way so that as you look at building the statue is looking at you as well. It would be weirder if you were looking at the building but the statue had its back to you.
What is sad is that an AC gets modded "Interesting" for calling all Utah Mormon business people "nuts", even if he claims to be one. Is bigotry really all that interesting? Why don't you guys throw me some mod points for this one: "All Slashdot moderators are freakin' morons."
The point is that I know a lot of Utah Mormon business people that are just *normal* business people, faults and all.
Then when Napster goes out of business (likely, considering that *no one* is making money as a music download service), you can listen to *none* of that massive library. I hope will have been worth it to you.
I thought the point was that you will soon be able to get a G5 in a *small* laptop. I know AMD is releasing their 64 bit chip for laptops, but for desktop replacement laptops. When the G5 hits the PowerBooks, there is every indication that the laptops will stay just as slim, trim, and light as they are now.
Apple doesn't give a discount, which I know is the major part of the point you are making, but they do allow for prepurchasing in large chunks. iTunes has an "allowance" feature that lets you prepay a certain amount. It was designed with kids in mind whose parents don't want them just buying as much music as the credit card allows.
Also, there are gift certificates you can purchase, that when redeemed work like allowances. You can purchase them through iTunes itself, through the online Apple store, or even as gift cards at Target.
I think a bulk discount would be awesome, but at least bulk purchases (without a discount) are available. This achieves the credit card processing savings you mentioned.
Or even worse, a Bill Gates theme park. There they regularly have to reinstall the same rides, shuffle everyone out of the park for five minutes so they can turn the power off then on again, and charge everyone's admission through car manufacturers assuming that you want to go anyway. They also regularly report to the media that they are taking the defective rides (and associate deaths) seriously and are making it their top priority to fix them...any day now.
Then there is always the Linus Torvalds theme park, but not many people go there. Although the rides are rock solid, they are a lot less fun and harder to figure out.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I think you missed:
Equivocation - \E*quiv`o*ca"tion\, n. The use of expressions susceptible of a double signification, with a purpose to mislead boneheaded moderators, especially when you are just making a joke.
I think you maybe misunderstand either the wiretap laws or how these particular SMSs were acquired. Judges issue warrants for wiretaps. They decide if there is probable cause that discussions about illegal activities are taking place.
A judge issued the subpoena for these SMSs. If they were in a situation needing a warrant to get them, a judge *could* have issued a warrant in compliance with wiretap laws. It seems like when you talk about "the government" getting access to these messages, you are equivocating the judge with the prosecutor. Wiretap laws limit prosecutors. Judges just administer the laws. Limitations on permissibility of evidence are *only* there to protect a defendant from abusive searches, including listening on phone conversations. The fact is that the defense probably requested these messages. There is *no* Constitutional abuse here. In fact, it is supporting the spirit of Amendment VI by allowing Bryant to get access to evidence in his defense.
Not that you are necessarily guilty of this, but for some reason the general public believes it has this Constitutional right to privacy in all kinds of places where they *don't* have it. If you have said one thing in court, but there is evidence that you said something contradictory elsewhere, justice demands that the court gives access to it. If Bryant's accuser is lying, and these SMSs show it, she doesn't have a Constitutional right to keep them private.
I see the point you are making, because it can make it look like an illegal search of sorts. But we don't know if this was illegally preserved. It may have been allowed under her service agreement. They usually give the service providers a lot of latitude.
As for the need of a warrant, the subpoena for the messages is similar to a warrant. Both are issued by judges. Subpoenas tell the party to cough it up while warrants allow the cops to go get it. If it was a warrant, they would have probable cause to get it.
More importantly, in criminal cases, courts ought to have every right allowed by the Constitution to require evidence that might exonerate someone. There is no Constitutional provision at issue here. Illegal search and seizure would be it, if any, but like I said, this was a subpoena, not a warrant.
This is important because the messages wouldn't have been available to just anyone, except that a judge found the evidence potentially important to finding the truth. A judge could also order that FedEx package opened, and it would be justified if it helped discover the truth in a case. It's also important to note that, for now, the only person reading these SMS messages is the judge himself, so he can decide if they are relevant. If they are, he turns them over to the lawyers so they can use them or prepare to argue against them. If they really aren't relevant, no one else will get to see them.
Forgive me for being rude, but the LAME thing here is your quickness at dismissing it. It is a pretty cool product for the price.
If twins don't share fingerprints, why *would* clones share them? Same DNA for both, right?
Some of the voice actors on the Simpsons have done pretty well as screen actors, the most prominent being Hank Azaria. If you look at the Simpson's IMDB page you can see that most of the others have done a lot of significant voice work on unrelated, but successful stuff.
Not that I don't think the actors are entitled to a bigger share of such a successful show. Voice work of a particular person is never the same when imitated by someone else. I know I really miss Jim Henson. Kermit and the others have never sounded the same.
As far as the imagination of kids achieving the same violent graphic images some adults come up with, I have to wonder if you have, or even know, any young children to think that. The only kids I know capable of that kind of imagination are the ones who have already been exposed to it. Your point that you probably shouldn't have kids watch those kind of movies, even with filters, is a good one. Still, there are a few redeemable movies that come down on the line that I would like my boys to see when they are old enough. This idea is good for that.
Frankly, I am baffled anyone could be bothered by this. No one is making you buy the thing. Why would anyone care if other people choose not to watch what they watch?
Then, if it was just the common stupidity they shared here, yeah, I see the similarity.
Actually, I thought the sarcasm was " our friendly software giant"
The VT G5 *center* price = $9.2 million.
While there is undoubtedly still variability between the two centers, it might be more comparable than you think.
What does any of this have to do with the Dell cluster being a waste of money because it crashes all the time?
If I build my own AMD system that predates the G5, I will fail to mention that I built it or obtained it through some other arrangement. I will also assume that any Joe Shmoe can install and run his own 64-bit linux system *after* building it himself. Oh, and I'll make sure to accuse Apple of claiming the first 64-bit laptop, even though someone else shipped them first and there is no actual indication Apple is going to make such a claim.
I will also generate a bunch of self-serving definitions about what a "personal computer" is when everyone really knows that the general public did not have a 64-bit system that they could buy, take home, and plug in until the G5 shipped. This is home (aka personal) use we are talking about and the fact that Apple's ad shows a guy *at home* should clue people like NAB into that. Don't worry. In my lack of bias you won't hear me pointing that out.
Finally, when I talk about the arguments of someone who disagrees with my position, like As the Apple Turns, I will make sure to assume their name is the indication of their lack of intelligence rather than a tounge-in-cheek reference to the Apple rumor mill.
AC, thy name is Troll.
As the Apple Turns has an insightful take on the whole thing. I had never heard of the Dell cluster in Buffalo. Bummer for Buffalo.
As an FYI, my understanding is the EU *still* isn't importing hormone-enhanced beef. The WTO just allowed the US and Canada to issue retaliatory tariffs. This article has lots of information about the trade fights that have been going on for the last number of years.
I am a BYU student and while we are no MIT, our science programs certainly aren't slouches. My brother is a Chem E PhD candidate here working on nano-sized batteries. He isn't the only person in the world doing it, nor is he making earth-shattering advancements, but he is contributing to the field. Like most LDS people, he has a career in which he wants to do good things. Wikipedia says some higher education mag ranked it as the best place to turn research dollars into inventions.
Two other questions: Why would a religious affiliation make you think BYU's achievements are suspect? That seems a bit presumptuous to me, I guess. Secondly (not that you aren't a generally insightful person), but why in the world did you get an "Underrated" mod? (I guess that is a rhetorical question.)
Wether or not its a good game, how do you capture that premise in a satisfying way WITHOUT sex, language, and violence?
The point that opponents of GTA and other such games would make: Why capture that premise *at all*?
That *is also* how the law works. IAALS (I am a law student), and one of the most fundamental principles of property law in the US is that in almost every case, your rights to property are only as good as the rights of the person you got the property from. The exclusions to this rule are very narrow, and EB doesn't even come close. If you buy stolen goods, your rights to the goods are only as good as the theif's, even if you buy the goods not knowing they were stolen.
Even if EB had waited the necessary time to sell the goods, that doesn't mean that EB had the *right* to sell the goods. It just meant that they wouldn't have violated that particular law. EB can sue the thief. The victim can sue both. Although I am sickened by frivolously litigious people, the legal system really does protect people like her. In court, EB would get kicked around for this kind of behavior.
You know its interesting that Utah Mormons may be more gullible than the general population (a point your linked website makes). It would probably be a good idea for Mormon leaders to try to prevent this. This doesn't prove the grandparent's post, though. For example, did proportion of Mormon scam artists mirror the proportion of Mormons in the general population? Basically I agree that gullible people attract dishonest people. I don't think that the grandparent's post was making that point, though.
By the way, what's with that website? Do they really consider Mormons a cult?
Man, I am really sorry you think this about people. To be honest, I doubt the authority of what you are saying. I lived for a total of 8 years in Montana and have never even heard of a primarily Mormon community. I also lived in Idaho, San Diego, and live in Utah right now. I have *never* heard a Mormon refer to a non-Mormon as a "Gentile". Tell me the truth, have you? Also, have you *actually* ever been screwed over by a Mormon? Do you know it was because you aren't Mormon or was he/she just a bad person?
My point is that even if you can answer these questions with real personal experiences, you are still stating a fairly bigoted position. Can you prove otherwise with some *reasonable*, complete evidence? I am very curious for my own knowledge.
I don't know the statue you're referring to, but I think it faces that way so that as you look at building the statue is looking at you as well. It would be weirder if you were looking at the building but the statue had its back to you.
What is sad is that an AC gets modded "Interesting" for calling all Utah Mormon business people "nuts", even if he claims to be one. Is bigotry really all that interesting? Why don't you guys throw me some mod points for this one: "All Slashdot moderators are freakin' morons."
The point is that I know a lot of Utah Mormon business people that are just *normal* business people, faults and all.
Then when Napster goes out of business (likely, considering that *no one* is making money as a music download service), you can listen to *none* of that massive library. I hope will have been worth it to you.
I thought the point was that you will soon be able to get a G5 in a *small* laptop. I know AMD is releasing their 64 bit chip for laptops, but for desktop replacement laptops. When the G5 hits the PowerBooks, there is every indication that the laptops will stay just as slim, trim, and light as they are now.
Apple doesn't give a discount, which I know is the major part of the point you are making, but they do allow for prepurchasing in large chunks. iTunes has an "allowance" feature that lets you prepay a certain amount. It was designed with kids in mind whose parents don't want them just buying as much music as the credit card allows.
Also, there are gift certificates you can purchase, that when redeemed work like allowances. You can purchase them through iTunes itself, through the online Apple store, or even as gift cards at Target.
I think a bulk discount would be awesome, but at least bulk purchases (without a discount) are available. This achieves the credit card processing savings you mentioned.
Or even worse, a Bill Gates theme park. There they regularly have to reinstall the same rides, shuffle everyone out of the park for five minutes so they can turn the power off then on again, and charge everyone's admission through car manufacturers assuming that you want to go anyway. They also regularly report to the media that they are taking the defective rides (and associate deaths) seriously and are making it their top priority to fix them...any day now.
Then there is always the Linus Torvalds theme park, but not many people go there. Although the rides are rock solid, they are a lot less fun and harder to figure out.