Lindsay Lohan steals an Escalade, goes on a high-speed chase up PCH, shows up at jail with a load of blow in her pants, and two years later the cops are all "hey, if you could show up for a deposition or something that would be, kind of, you know, cool and stuff."
One hardware nerd loses a phone and suddenly it's a goddamned national disaster. ZOMGMANTHEBATTLESHIPS!
So you are saying Lindsay Lohan should have been arrested faster, right? Or are you somehow implying that insufficient diligence against a celebrity makes it ok for a news site to buy stolen property? (and any shreds of moral ground Gizmodo had left was lost after they revealed the name of the poor Apple engineer, to complete the ruining of his life)
You and I and Gizmodo are under no obligation to help Apple keep Apple's secrets. That's not our job. It would be an unfair burden to place upon us -- a limit to our freedom.
Yes! And that's why Apple might have trouble suing for espionage. But you and I and Gizmodo ARE under obligation to not steal property (if you find a phone you should hand it in to police/bartender/owner) and not to buy property that you know to be stolen from a thief.
If I find your swiss watch in a bar, apple prototype or not, selling it to a news site is illegal!
When they posted the Apple Engineer's name and screen shots of his facebook page complete with picture I lost all sympathy for those bastards. Maybe a year in pound me in the ass prison is bad but afterwards...
Ok, you are absolutely right and the person in questions deserves some jail time. But what the fuck is up with pound me in the ass prison glee?? Do you think that people going to jail (for purchasing stolen goods, mind you!), should be raped? Should we make this an official part of the jail sentence, to be fair?
Also note that I could have anything stolen that was worth $5000 and the best that I'd get out of the cops is a sympathetic look and some advice to check with my insurance.
That is very true. But if a news outlet bought your stolen property and then bragged about it.... I imagine you'd be able to cause some trouble too.
Gawker apparently didn't check before the leaped... and Apple's got much bigger bucks than they do.
You do know that Gizmodo bought what is legally (and ethically) stolen property, knowing full well what they are doing? They practically bragged about it. And then, to add insult to the injury, revealed the name of the engineer from which the phone was stolen to make sure he is never hired again.
I can't bring myself to sympathize
what better way to fund state governments than predating upon the weaknesses of your citizens.
Gambling in a casino is a lot better than a state lottery. In case you don't know, casino's tend to keep some small (1%?) percentage of their throughput. Lotteries keep like 45%.
In the end it doesn't matter whether there are effects or not. So long as the masses believe that violent video games caused Columbine etcetc, this argument will always exist - and unfortunately will prevail a lot of the time. Good parenting > nanny state.
What ARE you people talking about? The gap between restriction on R-rated games and nanny state is so big that I don't know where to start. Nanny state would be forbidding your kids to play violent games. This says kids just need your consent to play anything they want. You see the difference?
WE don't have a responsibility, PARENTS have a responsibility. WE (as in "we the people") have a responsibility to make sure the Constitution doesn't get corrupted by well-intentioned feel-good attempts to legislate morality. Get it straight, ya big goof.
No one absolves you of the parent responsibility. All this does is to make sure your kid can't buy an R-rated game without your knowledge. Constitution can hardly get corrupted, because it is a well known fact that minors do not have full constitutional rights or responsibilities (just check with your local school if you don't believe me)
The video game industry puts ratings right on the cover. I don't want the goverment to tell me how to raise my kids.
What are you talking about? No one is telling you how to raise your kids. All they're saying is that if you want to buy an R-rated game for your kid, you should do it yourself. How is that wrong?
We let the movie and music industries self-regulate. Why should video games be any different?
Apparently they don't self regulate well enough. I know for a fact that movie theaters don't self-regulate well in my area. I don't have any kids, but I imagine I would be pissed off if my child saw an R-rated movie because no one bothers checking ID
Way off. It's the parents responsibility to be parents when the kids obtain the stuff. Smart people realize no law is going to stop what people consider a civil disobedience at best.
I don't even think you can return an open game. Certainly not a PC game. So, as a parent, what do you do?
Why are people up in arms about restricting R-rated games to minors?? What is the problem? Minors don't even have full legal rights. Are you surprised that you can't get your nose pierced (without guardian permission) if you are 15? How is that different?
Parents SHOULD be aware of what their children are doing 100% of the time. When I was growing up, I didn't go anywhere without letting my parents know. Even when I'd sneak out at night, I was sure to leave a note, because I knew my mother would call the cops if I was missing.
Dude, have you read what the OP wrote?? Of course parents should be aware where their children are. But if you allow your child to go to the mall, you certainly can't know or prevent them from buying an R-rated game or seeing an R-rated movie. Hence, the retailer should probably enforce it. My understanding is that movie theaters enforce the ratings (though voluntarily). If you are a good parent you would even see that your child is playing GTA 9, but good luck returning an open game disk...
But yeah, he should pay the ticket. It's not like he got snared by a rigged light, as happens to a lot of people. He made an illegal right turn. End of story.
But it's a f**king private contractor that will be getting the money. Why should he be paying money to a private contractor for an illegal right turn???
True enough. As far as I can tell, though, I have yet to be seriously harmed by my SSN. The data security provisions of my bank might be another matter, but my SSN is no more harmful to me than my name, my phone number, my dedicated IP address, or the primary keys assigned to me in any of hundreds of databases.
Clever. Yes - you haven't been seriously harmed. But my understanding is that home address + DOB + SSN is all it takes to "steal your identity" (or, rather, successfully impersonate you to get a credit card, etc). When someone does manage to get a credit card or a loan in your name, you will be harmed then.
The fact that the same number is used as a primary key, a student id and has to be given to every utility provider and at the same time is used as a reliable authentication method makes the system easy to compromise.
It was the "free health care for everyone" people who choose fund a procedure that ends a baby's life.
I do not wish to start an abortion debate here. I really don't. But I have to ask - even if the same procedure saves the life of the mother? Free health care for everyone should be covering mothers, so a line has to be drawn somewhere.
For the love of God, get over yourself. The republicans (as well as 30+ democrats) are against this bill because it is a pile of shit.
I call (partial) bullshit. I claim that almost any (seriously proposed) bill would get a few votes from democrats and republicans. Since every single one of ~180 republicans voted against it, at least some of them are clearly voting against it to spite Obama. I don't really know how many. Just like quite a few democrats were arm-twisted into voting for it against their wishes
In Springfield MA police officers who had been videotaped kicking a guy in the head were found not guilty. The judge ruled that they used "reasonable force" to subdue the subject.
So you are quite wrong on so many levels. This would definately not happen in the USA. Indeed, as I pointed out, we basically have the opposite problem here, where if you are a cop you can often quite literally get away with murder.
I bet if those Sprinfield MA police officers were videotaped accusing their superiors of corruption they would not get off so easily. Nor is he being persecuted for abuse of his power against common people.
Oddly enough, anytime you piss off your superior, you are likely to suffer for it -- police officer or not, America or Russia.
I respectfully call bullshit. I've lived in Israel for a few years and had relatives who visited me. Unless your relatives had to go to the most orthodox area (I wouldn't even know where to find them), Israel is just as western as US, except for Kalashnikov-armed security guards in public places.
You can go to the boardwalk at any beach and buy pork kebab. I have visited Tel-Aviv on regular basis (lived half-hour away from it) and in 4 years I have not seen or been near a bombed location. I did see a suitcases and trash bags destroyed by bomb squads from time to time - I'll give you that.
Personally I think copyright should be limited to the life of the "artist", and completely non-transferable.
I understand the reasoning you have, but you are wrong. This has been discussed ad nauseam. You don't want to create a situation where artists living or dying has such a grand financial effect. Imagine if someone (say, a competitor) had a financial incentive to kill your top performing artist(s) and put you out of a business overnight? Suppose you sign a singer up for 5 albums and while they are working on their 5th album they are killed and their previous 4 albums that you had automatically lose their commercial value by going out of copyright? Really?
Your transferable but not renewable system makes sense, however.
Petting theft just turned into Felony Commercial Burglary
Your post is very insightful, but I can't get an image of someone either stealing a cat
or petting a guard dog to get into the store...:) Or perhaps something involving trained
weasels... the possibilities are endless.
I installed Linux and ended up with two desktop environments, three word processors, four web browsers, and a whole bunch of image editors, system utilities, file managers, and other stuff.
As someone had already pointed out in a different thread, the key problem is autostart. Disk space is cheap and having a few extra apps here and there can be ignored. But the crap-ware loads itself into memory! And on the desktop, and into the System taskbar, and into the Quick-start menu that puts up some bubbles with some notifications/offers and then there is software that auto-registers itself for extensions that it does not know how to handle! Oh, am I ranting?
The last one really gets me. I can understand why software wants to stuff itself into the system task menu and bombard me with ads (I am not going to tolerate it, but I see their motivation). But why would you register your software for an extension only to start automatically and tell me that "This program does not support this format"?
but I would certainly consider paying for Hulu, so long as the price was reasonable
I watch Hulu quite a bit and I would consider it as well. Heck, I would probably pay about $1/month just so that I can forever disable certain ads that I do not like. Every time I see the Axe deodorant commercial I want to find the person who made it (approved it, came up with it, etc.) and kick them in the face for a very long time!
Slashdot Mirror
So you are saying Lindsay Lohan should have been arrested faster, right? Or are you somehow implying that insufficient diligence against a celebrity makes it ok for a news site to buy stolen property? (and any shreds of moral ground Gizmodo had left was lost after they revealed the name of the poor Apple engineer, to complete the ruining of his life)
Mhm, don't forget the part about the item being dissected to write the article.
Yes! And that's why Apple might have trouble suing for espionage.
But you and I and Gizmodo ARE under obligation to not steal property (if you find a phone you should hand it in to police/bartender/owner) and not to buy property that you know to be stolen from a thief.
If I find your swiss watch in a bar, apple prototype or not, selling it to a news site is illegal!
Ok, you are absolutely right and the person in questions deserves some jail time. But what the fuck is up with pound me in the ass prison glee?? Do you think that people going to jail (for purchasing stolen goods, mind you!), should be raped? Should we make this an official part of the jail sentence, to be fair?
That is very true. But if a news outlet bought your stolen property and then bragged about it.... I imagine you'd be able to cause some trouble too.
You do know that Gizmodo bought what is legally (and ethically) stolen property, knowing full well what they are doing? They practically bragged about it. And then, to add insult to the injury, revealed the name of the engineer from which the phone was stolen to make sure he is never hired again.
I can't bring myself to sympathize
Gambling in a casino is a lot better than a state lottery. In case you don't know, casino's tend to keep some small (1%?) percentage of their throughput. Lotteries keep like 45%.
Seriously? I get a Troll rating for this? :)
We really should meta-moderate more...
What ARE you people talking about? The gap between restriction on R-rated games and nanny state is so big that I don't know where to start. Nanny state would be forbidding your kids to play violent games. This says kids just need your consent to play anything they want. You see the difference?
No one absolves you of the parent responsibility. All this does is to make sure your kid can't buy an R-rated game without your knowledge. Constitution can hardly get corrupted, because it is a well known fact that minors do not have full constitutional rights or responsibilities (just check with your local school if you don't believe me)
What are you talking about? No one is telling you how to raise your kids. All they're saying is that if you want to buy an R-rated game for your kid, you should do it yourself. How is that wrong?
We let the movie and music industries self-regulate. Why should video games be any different?
Apparently they don't self regulate well enough. I know for a fact that movie theaters don't self-regulate well in my area. I don't have any kids, but I imagine I would be pissed off if my child saw an R-rated movie because no one bothers checking ID
I don't even think you can return an open game. Certainly not a PC game. So, as a parent, what do you do?
Why are people up in arms about restricting R-rated games to minors?? What is the problem? Minors don't even have full legal rights. Are you surprised that you can't get your nose pierced (without guardian permission) if you are 15? How is that different?
Dude, have you read what the OP wrote?? Of course parents should be aware where their children are. But if you allow your child to go to the mall, you certainly can't know or prevent them from buying an R-rated game or seeing an R-rated movie. Hence, the retailer should probably enforce it. My understanding is that movie theaters enforce the ratings (though voluntarily).
If you are a good parent you would even see that your child is playing GTA 9, but good luck returning an open game disk...
But it's a f**king private contractor that will be getting the money. Why should he be paying money to a private contractor for an illegal right turn???
Clever. Yes - you haven't been seriously harmed. But my understanding is that home address + DOB + SSN is all it takes to "steal your identity" (or, rather, successfully impersonate you to get a credit card, etc). When someone does manage to get a credit card or a loan in your name, you will be harmed then.
The fact that the same number is used as a primary key, a student id and has to be given to every utility provider and at the same time is used as a reliable authentication method makes the system easy to compromise.
I do not wish to start an abortion debate here. I really don't. But I have to ask - even if the same procedure saves the life of the mother? Free health care for everyone should be covering mothers, so a line has to be drawn somewhere.
I call (partial) bullshit. I claim that almost any (seriously proposed) bill would get a few votes from democrats and republicans. Since every single one of ~180 republicans voted against it, at least some of them are clearly voting against it to spite Obama. I don't really know how many. Just like quite a few democrats were arm-twisted into voting for it against their wishes
I am quoting someone else's post, but the health care companies are operating on 4.4% margin in a same way that Forrest Gump was a net loss.
Yes and no. You don't have to own a car.
I bet if those Sprinfield MA police officers were videotaped accusing their superiors of corruption they would not get off so easily. Nor is he being persecuted for abuse of his power against common people.
Oddly enough, anytime you piss off your superior, you are likely to suffer for it -- police officer or not, America or Russia.
I respectfully call bullshit. I've lived in Israel for a few years and had relatives who visited me. Unless your relatives had to go to the most orthodox area (I wouldn't even know where to find them), Israel is just as western as US, except for Kalashnikov-armed security guards in public places.
You can go to the boardwalk at any beach and buy pork kebab. I have visited Tel-Aviv on regular basis (lived half-hour away from it) and in 4 years I have not seen or been near a bombed location. I did see a suitcases and trash bags destroyed by bomb squads from time to time - I'll give you that.
I understand the reasoning you have, but you are wrong. This has been discussed ad nauseam. You don't want to create a situation where artists living or dying has such a grand financial effect. Imagine if someone (say, a competitor) had a financial incentive to kill your top performing artist(s) and put you out of a business overnight? Suppose you sign a singer up for 5 albums and while they are working on their 5th album they are killed and their previous 4 albums that you had automatically lose their commercial value by going out of copyright? Really?
Your transferable but not renewable system makes sense, however.
Your post is very insightful, but I can't get an image of someone either stealing a cat or petting a guard dog to get into the store... :) Or perhaps something involving trained
weasels... the possibilities are endless.
As someone had already pointed out in a different thread, the key problem is autostart. Disk space is cheap and having a few extra apps here and there can be ignored. But the crap-ware loads itself into memory! And on the desktop, and into the System taskbar, and into the Quick-start menu that puts up some bubbles with some notifications/offers and then there is software that auto-registers itself for extensions that it does not know how to handle! Oh, am I ranting?
The last one really gets me. I can understand why software wants to stuff itself into the system task menu and bombard me with ads (I am not going to tolerate it, but I see their motivation). But why would you register your software for an extension only to start automatically and tell me that "This program does not support this format"?
I watch Hulu quite a bit and I would consider it as well. Heck, I would probably pay about $1/month just so that I can forever disable certain ads that I do not like. Every time I see the Axe deodorant commercial I want to find the person who made it (approved it, came up with it, etc.) and kick them in the face for a very long time!