Yes, because $250,000 is a huge financial burden to a company with $40,000,000,000 on hand. I highly doubt they're gonna wind up paying 160,000 of these...
The bounty will cause a lot of news stories to be written. Those stories will correctly identify the viruses mentioned as Microsoft vulnerability viruses. That will cause much more than $250,000 worth of damage to Microsoft to Microsoft's reputation. (If that is possible.)
Those news items are already written. The bounty will probably be reported as a proactive step to stop viruses - better PR for MS, not worse.
What the story doesn't mention is that it shouldn't be necessary to offer a bounty. The real story is why doesn't the United States' FBI federal police investigate the crime?
Offering a bounty does not mean they're not investigating. Bounties just open up extra avenues, extra leads - as an example, Saddam Hussein's sons were caught because of the $5 million bounties on their heads.
Script kiddies are probably more likely to be running Windows themselves, 'though. They'll crack what they have access to themselves, instead of something utterly like Linux.
Someone who trained to use a grenade launcher is going to use a grenade launcher when available, even if pistols are more prevalent.:-p
Hint: he's talking about state of the Linux desktop. Just about everyone knows Linux rules the server world right now.
Of course, you knew that, and chose instead to make a smart-assed reply that makes you look about as mature as the little kid sticking his fingers in his ear and yelling "lalalalalala" when he's criticized.
A Christian can't run an organized prayer as part of an official function. They're free to pray on their own, or with an informal group of friends. There was a prayer circle that took place outside our school once a week before classes - in which teachers participated.
talk to a student/teacher about Christianity (even when the student ASKS about it)
Again, not true. The teacher will most likely refer them to a minister, however, as that's more appropriate. If it's a student and not a teacher being asked, there's no problem at all. I'd love to see you provide a single link to a news item about a student punished for talking to another student about Christianity.
can't bring in a Bible to school without risk of suspension
0 for 3, thus far. A student may bring their Bible in - hell, I brought one in for class discussions sometimes. They just can't bring in 60 and start handing them out to students.
and Christian students who have a voluntary Bible study club are not given the funds due to a school club
Our school didn't give out funds for student clubs, so I can't speak from personal experience on this one.
Where is the ACLU in defends these peoples rights of speech and religion?
Defending the rights of people like me to go to an unbiased, impartial learning environment, where no beliefs - Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, or Jedi, whatever - are pushed on the students. Thank God.
It took others to get some of these problems solved.
Wow... the ACLU doesn't cover every case, and other organizations more suited to some of them pick up the slack. What a revelation...
A racist can hate Jews because they are Jewish (religious discrimination instead of racial), but that doesn't change the fact that they are a racist. The same applies to the ACLU. Just because they prosecute others, doesn't change the fact that they haven't defended the rights of Christians. They only persecute Christians.
Plenty of Christians have been defended by the ACLU. The ACLU merely has a different interpretation on some rights than you do - namely, they believe in the separation of Church and State, whereas you'd like them more integrated. Fortunately, the Supreme Court agrees with them and not you on that particular issue.
The ACLU prefers to defend the rights of people like me not to be pressured into joining "voluntary" prayer, the right I have not to be prostelyzed to at my public school, etc. Religious freedom for all, not just the Christians.
We used to teach these things, and back then we didn't have as many problems with the weapons.
We used to live in rural communities using guns for survival. That's a rather major difference from living in the ghetto using guns to score a little cocaine.
Banning weapons only serves to disarm the populace to allow the radicals of political society to more easily force their agenda on the public--such as a change to something like communism, dictatorship, or kingship. When you see these types of changes, it's because the populace has been unarmed.
Can you give a single example where a functioning democracy has become a communist, dictatorship, or kingdom? No? Didn't think so. How about Iraq and Afghanistan? Oh, wait - everyone there had guns and they STILL became totalitarian countries!
When you see these changes, the populace was armed, not unarmed. Russia, North Vietnam, etc. became communist because the citizens were armed. Most revolutions like that are because the citizens get manipulated into doing it by charismatic leaders - them having guns would make that easier, not harder.
The ACLU takes the position that the 2nd Amendment does not cover universal gun rights - e.g. they have a different opinion from the NRA on what the 2nd Amendment covers.
Thus, to them, the supposed universal right to bear arms is imaginary.
I never said anything about them supporting or not supporting the Symantec thing, as this thread is about something entirely different, the ACLU's support / lack there of of the 2nd Amendment.
I'm also well aware of the fact that the Symantec action would fall under the 1st Amendment, were Symantec a government institution and not a private company. Had you read the entire thread, you'd know that I wasn't discussing the Symantec controversy.
They haven't, however, ruled on whether the part regarding a militia requires a militia to be necessary for the second part of the amendment to be valid.
Since this is all theoretical, I'm going on the assumption that the Supreme Court would have had to rule that the Second Amendment requires the need of a militia to be valid.
The right to privacy would not be invalidated by the Second Amendment being invalidated, and thus a separate Supreme Court decision getting rid of it would be required for the local governments to be permitted infringe upon it.
I take it you also disagree with his statement that he "[wants] to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks."
Not really, no. I don't care if Satan himself votes for Dean - I support Dean because of his positions, not because of those who vote for him.
With the full quote, it's fairly apparent that Dean meant we have to appeal to as many voters as possible - even those who don't traditionally vote Democratic. The stereotype of a redneck Southerner was a good example of people who vote Republican, but may be disaffected with Bush and his neo-conservatives.
The tendency to take Dean out of context (the Hamas = soldiers thing comes to mind) merely helps him in the long run, when people find out the context.:-p
anyway More palistinan women and children have been killed then isreali's in total
Yes, because numbers are all that matters.
How about taking the intent of those doing the killing into account? You know, like how the Palestinian suicide bombers and infiltrators specifically targets civilians, whilst the Israeli military does not?
No. My interpretation means the guarantee of that right is lost, not the right itself.
IMO, having a strong standing Army is MORE reason to have the 2nd amendment. we need to have the ability to protect ourselves from our government in the case of some sort of action taken on the part of our government to quash our rights....and please Mr. Dean supporter, don't act like you think that is a remote possibility *cough* patriot act *cough*
If Iraq's standing army, equipped with tanks, fighter aircraft, helicopters, etc., couldn't hold off our standing army, our citizenry armed with 9mm handguns certainly won't be able to.
I believe our political system, however imperfect, is good enough to prevent a need for armed revolution. Things like the Patriot Act (which is bad, but not as bad as everyone seems to like to say it is) have a tendency to get fixed through the checks and balances built in.
BTW, I hope you know just how strong a supporter Mr. dean is on Gun ownership and the second amendment. Vermont has an open carry law. meaning any law-abiding person can purchase a hand gun and wear it in a holster in full view of the public.
I'm well aware of Dean's support of gun rights. I'm also aware of his pro choice, pro equal rights, pro fiscal responsibility, and other such things that are just as important or more important to me than his position on gun control. In short - I'll take him over Bush any day.
in fact he is on record saying that he supports the rights of the states to come up with the laws they see as necessary to control violence with weapons. the thinking is that a rural state will have more liberal (as in more free or open) gun carrying policy than an urban state. but all gun policies will not abridge the 2nd amendment's right to own a gun.I agree with his stance.
Parts of that I agree with, as well. I believe places such as NYC should be free to ban guns in their jurisdiction, while rural areas like Minnesota - where guns are necessary - should be permitted have laws allowing guns. Local government generally knows better than Federal - whether they decide to ban or allow all guns.
I'm well aware that the Constitution does not grant rights, that it instead restricts the government. I suspect you probably knew that, and chose to attack my mistaken use of words instead of the actual argument.
For instance, you can teach, or talk about, any religion in school except Christianity.
False. My school taught about Christianity in our World History class, right alongside Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and others.
The ACLU has consistently brought lawsuits agains Christian organizations and people.
They have also consistently brought lawsuits against non-Christian organizations and people. Wow! They're anti everyone!
Guns don't kill people! People kill people!
Nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill people! Fires don't kill people, smoke inhalation kills people! People don't kill people, blood loss, blunt trauma, and other injuries kill people!
Do you have any idea how absurd using short, cute, and completely irrelevant slogans in a debate makes you seem?
The ACLU is only denying Americans their right to defend themselves from their own government and others.
Debatable, but luckily we don't have to defend ourselves, because people like you are in the minority and thus can't elect people who'd make it necessary.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Here's how I read that.
Given that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
If the "well regulated militia" part wasn't a condition, it seems like the Founding Fathers would have just said "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and left it at that. After all, the First Amendment doesn't start with "Since these freedoms are necessary to keep the peons happy,..."
Now, it's difficult to argue that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the US, considering the fact that our Armed Forces are the most powerful standing army on the planet. Thus, as the condition established in the Second Amendment - that a militia be necessary - is no longer true, the second part of the Amendment is also no longer true.
The current interpretation of the Second Ammendment by the Supreme Court is the same as yours
Let's hear it for the Supreme Court, then!;-)
Of course, they did put Bush in the White House... damnit, now I'm all conflicted.:-p
I may not have a right to carry guns but I think everone can agree I have a right to say I have a right to carry guns.
Certainly. I was merely responding to the parent poster's claim that the ACLU's support of gun control means they are failing to support the entire Constitution, when it instead means that they merely hold a different interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
I was making no statement about whether the ACLU would get involved in this particular case, as you are correct in saying it's a free speech case. However, as the 1st Amendment does not apply to private companies like Symantec, there probably won't be a case in the first place.
what they are saying is that since we need a well regulated militia to protect the home land...which we don't anymore, now that we have the most powerful standing army in the world...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because $250,000 is a huge financial burden to a company with $40,000,000,000 on hand. I highly doubt they're gonna wind up paying 160,000 of these...
The bounty will cause a lot of news stories to be written. Those stories will correctly identify the viruses mentioned as Microsoft vulnerability viruses. That will cause much more than $250,000 worth of damage to Microsoft to Microsoft's reputation. (If that is possible.)
Those news items are already written. The bounty will probably be reported as a proactive step to stop viruses - better PR for MS, not worse.
What the story doesn't mention is that it shouldn't be necessary to offer a bounty. The real story is why doesn't the United States' FBI federal police investigate the crime?
Offering a bounty does not mean they're not investigating. Bounties just open up extra avenues, extra leads - as an example, Saddam Hussein's sons were caught because of the $5 million bounties on their heads.
s/utterly/unfamiliar
Script kiddies are probably more likely to be running Windows themselves, 'though. They'll crack what they have access to themselves, instead of something utterly like Linux.
:-p
Someone who trained to use a grenade launcher is going to use a grenade launcher when available, even if pistols are more prevalent.
might be this Blackboard...
Hint: he's talking about state of the Linux desktop. Just about everyone knows Linux rules the server world right now.
Of course, you knew that, and chose instead to make a smart-assed reply that makes you look about as mature as the little kid sticking his fingers in his ear and yelling "lalalalalala" when he's criticized.
a Christian can't pray
A Christian can't run an organized prayer as part of an official function. They're free to pray on their own, or with an informal group of friends. There was a prayer circle that took place outside our school once a week before classes - in which teachers participated.
talk to a student/teacher about Christianity (even when the student ASKS about it)
Again, not true. The teacher will most likely refer them to a minister, however, as that's more appropriate. If it's a student and not a teacher being asked, there's no problem at all. I'd love to see you provide a single link to a news item about a student punished for talking to another student about Christianity.
can't bring in a Bible to school without risk of suspension
0 for 3, thus far. A student may bring their Bible in - hell, I brought one in for class discussions sometimes. They just can't bring in 60 and start handing them out to students.
and Christian students who have a voluntary Bible study club are not given the funds due to a school club
Our school didn't give out funds for student clubs, so I can't speak from personal experience on this one.
Where is the ACLU in defends these peoples rights of speech and religion?
Defending the rights of people like me to go to an unbiased, impartial learning environment, where no beliefs - Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, or Jedi, whatever - are pushed on the students. Thank God.
It took others to get some of these problems solved.
Wow... the ACLU doesn't cover every case, and other organizations more suited to some of them pick up the slack. What a revelation...
A racist can hate Jews because they are Jewish (religious discrimination instead of racial), but that doesn't change the fact that they are a racist. The same applies to the ACLU. Just because they prosecute others, doesn't change the fact that they haven't defended the rights of Christians. They only persecute Christians.
Plenty of Christians have been defended by the ACLU. The ACLU merely has a different interpretation on some rights than you do - namely, they believe in the separation of Church and State, whereas you'd like them more integrated. Fortunately, the Supreme Court agrees with them and not you on that particular issue.
The ACLU prefers to defend the rights of people like me not to be pressured into joining "voluntary" prayer, the right I have not to be prostelyzed to at my public school, etc. Religious freedom for all, not just the Christians.
We used to teach these things, and back then we didn't have as many problems with the weapons.
We used to live in rural communities using guns for survival. That's a rather major difference from living in the ghetto using guns to score a little cocaine.
Banning weapons only serves to disarm the populace to allow the radicals of political society to more easily force their agenda on the public--such as a change to something like communism, dictatorship, or kingship. When you see these types of changes, it's because the populace has been unarmed.
Can you give a single example where a functioning democracy has become a communist, dictatorship, or kingdom? No? Didn't think so. How about Iraq and Afghanistan? Oh, wait - everyone there had guns and they STILL became totalitarian countries!
When you see these changes, the populace was armed, not unarmed. Russia, North Vietnam, etc. became communist because the citizens were armed. Most revolutions like that are because the citizens get manipulated into doing it by charismatic leaders - them having guns would make that easier, not harder.
What difference does it make what was going through their attackers head when it happened?
So the killing of, say, an SS officer about to shoot civilians in WWII is the moral equivalent of murdering a two year old?
If you believe that intent has nothing to do with it, then there's no sense in arguing with you - I can't help ya.
The ACLU takes the position that the 2nd Amendment does not cover universal gun rights - e.g. they have a different opinion from the NRA on what the 2nd Amendment covers.
Thus, to them, the supposed universal right to bear arms is imaginary.
I never said anything about them supporting or not supporting the Symantec thing, as this thread is about something entirely different, the ACLU's support / lack there of of the 2nd Amendment.
I'm also well aware of the fact that the Symantec action would fall under the 1st Amendment, were Symantec a government institution and not a private company. Had you read the entire thread, you'd know that I wasn't discussing the Symantec controversy.
If the Israelis wanted to kill civilians, they'd do a far better job of it. 2000lb bombs from F-16s hitting every block would probably do it.
Israel doesn't go into a Palestinian restaurant/mall/university/bus and kill all the people there just because they're Palestinian.
I'd say not patronizing Symantec because they're biased would fulfill the neutrality requirement.
Did you have a different point I'm missing?
They haven't, however, ruled on whether the part regarding a militia requires a militia to be necessary for the second part of the amendment to be valid.
The government, like everyone else, is free to not patronize Symantec.
Thus, I fail to see the problem.
Since this is all theoretical, I'm going on the assumption that the Supreme Court would have had to rule that the Second Amendment requires the need of a militia to be valid.
The right to privacy would not be invalidated by the Second Amendment being invalidated, and thus a separate Supreme Court decision getting rid of it would be required for the local governments to be permitted infringe upon it.
Restricting the government in this particular case means it is a guarantee of the right. Come on, it's not that hard to understand.
I take it you also disagree with his statement that he "[wants] to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks."
:-p
Not really, no. I don't care if Satan himself votes for Dean - I support Dean because of his positions, not because of those who vote for him.
With the full quote, it's fairly apparent that Dean meant we have to appeal to as many voters as possible - even those who don't traditionally vote Democratic. The stereotype of a redneck Southerner was a good example of people who vote Republican, but may be disaffected with Bush and his neo-conservatives.
The tendency to take Dean out of context (the Hamas = soldiers thing comes to mind) merely helps him in the long run, when people find out the context.
anyway More palistinan women and children have been killed then isreali's in total
Yes, because numbers are all that matters.
How about taking the intent of those doing the killing into account? You know, like how the Palestinian suicide bombers and infiltrators specifically targets civilians, whilst the Israeli military does not?
Here, let me fix the post - the argument is still there.
Uh, their stance is that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee universal gun ownership - as seen in the post you're quoting..
The ACLU probably doesn't wish to defend what it considers imaginary rights.
Not defending the NRA doesn't show the ACLU to be pushing a left-wing agenda any more than them not defending peoples' right to murder would.
so we should just toss that right?
No. My interpretation means the guarantee of that right is lost, not the right itself.
IMO, having a strong standing Army is MORE reason to have the 2nd amendment. we need to have the ability to protect ourselves from our government in the case of some sort of action taken on the part of our government to quash our rights....and please Mr. Dean supporter, don't act like you think that is a remote possibility *cough* patriot act *cough*
If Iraq's standing army, equipped with tanks, fighter aircraft, helicopters, etc., couldn't hold off our standing army, our citizenry armed with 9mm handguns certainly won't be able to.
I believe our political system, however imperfect, is good enough to prevent a need for armed revolution. Things like the Patriot Act (which is bad, but not as bad as everyone seems to like to say it is) have a tendency to get fixed through the checks and balances built in.
BTW, I hope you know just how strong a supporter Mr. dean is on Gun ownership and the second amendment. Vermont has an open carry law. meaning any law-abiding person can purchase a hand gun and wear it in a holster in full view of the public.
I'm well aware of Dean's support of gun rights. I'm also aware of his pro choice, pro equal rights, pro fiscal responsibility, and other such things that are just as important or more important to me than his position on gun control. In short - I'll take him over Bush any day.
in fact he is on record saying that he supports the rights of the states to come up with the laws they see as necessary to control violence with weapons. the thinking is that a rural state will have more liberal (as in more free or open) gun carrying policy than an urban state. but all gun policies will not abridge the 2nd amendment's right to own a gun.I agree with his stance.
Parts of that I agree with, as well. I believe places such as NYC should be free to ban guns in their jurisdiction, while rural areas like Minnesota - where guns are necessary - should be permitted have laws allowing guns. Local government generally knows better than Federal - whether they decide to ban or allow all guns.
I'm well aware that the Constitution does not grant rights, that it instead restricts the government. I suspect you probably knew that, and chose to attack my mistaken use of words instead of the actual argument.
p.s. you're speeling iz getin woors
For instance, you can teach, or talk about, any religion in school except Christianity.
False. My school taught about Christianity in our World History class, right alongside Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and others.
The ACLU has consistently brought lawsuits agains Christian organizations and people.
They have also consistently brought lawsuits against non-Christian organizations and people. Wow! They're anti everyone!
Guns don't kill people! People kill people!
Nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill people! Fires don't kill people, smoke inhalation kills people! People don't kill people, blood loss, blunt trauma, and other injuries kill people!
Do you have any idea how absurd using short, cute, and completely irrelevant slogans in a debate makes you seem?
The ACLU is only denying Americans their right to defend themselves from their own government and others.
Debatable, but luckily we don't have to defend ourselves, because people like you are in the minority and thus can't elect people who'd make it necessary.
Nitpicking does not a good debate tactic make.
:-p
Now, when you and the ACLU learn to read com [sic] on back and chat, l?
Only if you learn to spell.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
;-)
:-p
Here's how I read that.
Given that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
If the "well regulated militia" part wasn't a condition, it seems like the Founding Fathers would have just said "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and left it at that. After all, the First Amendment doesn't start with "Since these freedoms are necessary to keep the peons happy,..."
Now, it's difficult to argue that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the US, considering the fact that our Armed Forces are the most powerful standing army on the planet. Thus, as the condition established in the Second Amendment - that a militia be necessary - is no longer true, the second part of the Amendment is also no longer true.
The current interpretation of the Second Ammendment by the Supreme Court is the same as yours
Let's hear it for the Supreme Court, then!
Of course, they did put Bush in the White House... damnit, now I'm all conflicted.
Yes, because everyone belives in every single thing their chosen political candidate supports.
</sarcasm>
Get a clue.
Dean has a few things I disagree with him on, while having a huge amount of things I agree with him on.
Bush has a few things I agree with him on, while having a huge amount of things I disagree with him on.
There isn't a single candidate who agrees with me on every issue.
I may not have a right to carry guns but I think everone can agree I have a right to say I have a right to carry guns.
Certainly. I was merely responding to the parent poster's claim that the ACLU's support of gun control means they are failing to support the entire Constitution, when it instead means that they merely hold a different interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
I was making no statement about whether the ACLU would get involved in this particular case, as you are correct in saying it's a free speech case. However, as the 1st Amendment does not apply to private companies like Symantec, there probably won't be a case in the first place.
what they are saying is that since we need a well regulated militia to protect the home land ...which we don't anymore, now that we have the most powerful standing army in the world...