If the computers in question can run a basic version of Vista...does that not make them "capable" of running vista? I hate Vista as much as the next guy and I think Microshaft was probably deceptive in the marketing campaign but I feel like I must be missing something here.
Don't tell me you actually think that people doing malicious hacking shouldn't be appropriately dealt with by the country whose laws they fucked over by hacking.... I mean, all you'd have to do is go to international waters and you could do all you wanted, to any country you wanted, to any server you wanted, and there would be no retribution.
In the 1700s, there were men (and a few women) who would do just that(except the server part)...they were called pirates. Many operated in the Caribbean, some at the Barbary Coast...some elsewhere. Generally the navy of whomever they offended would go out and shoot them to stop them.
The problem for the pirates was that while they could attack anyone...they pretty much were at the mercy of any country they attacked that decided to fight back. The difference with an internet hacker is that they sit nice and protected behind their own country while people steadfastly proclaim "no crime was committed here...how can you dare think to punish them".
Yes, you file for extradition. But if that doesn't work, what next? The target of these attacks was in the US. Just because the attacker wasn't, doesn't mean he or she should not be punished.
Go back and re-read my post. Both of you...My post advocates against the anti-gambling laws. It is not government's job to tell people not to gamble.
My point was that gambling can and does affect people besides the gambler. So do those other things mentioned such as gluttony, alchoholism, etc...I think from a personal level, people need to be aware how their decisions will affect those around them even when those decisions aren't illegal. Why is it so hard for you people to understand this?
...Gambling in all cases is a victimless crime as you have lost only what you have wagered...
Until you blow your rent/mortgage money, food money, life savings and your house...then it directly affects the gambler's family. Not so victimless anymore is it?
For the record, I am against this ruling. Kentucky has no business taking away domain names from someone way the heck outside their jurisdiction but gambling is known to be addictive and has caused massive problems for many, including losing money, houses, jobs and marriages. That said, instead of seizing domain names and outlawing gambling, the government should be warning people about the dangers of it.
...establishing the US as a Christian Theocracy (minus any real elements of Christianity) that will spread Jesus over the earth (minus the teaching of Jesus)
I think you have hit the crux of a big problem within Christian circles in this country. I think many liberals, though not all, would be far more accepting of Christians(I am one) and their beliefs if more of them actually followed Jesus' teachings more closely. It is my opinion that hypocracy by Christians, particularly but not limited to those who are more publicly visible, has caused notable damage to the perceived image of Christians as a whole. I have seen similar feelings from several others saying they don't mind Jesus so much as they mind what some of those who claim to be his followers are saying and doing.
All I ask is that you don't judge all Christians as a whole based on the actions of individuals. None of us are perfect.
The final note I have is that one of Jesus' main teachings was to share his message of his teachings, his death and his resurrection and hence the forgiveness of sins all over the world. It should be noted that this was not intended as a decree for his followers to force everyone in sight to become a Christian. Simply spread the Word...
The entire basis of our legal system is innocent until proven guilty. You're assuming guilty until proven innocent.
Show some real evidence, and I will be on your side.
How could we afford, as a nation, for this kid not to have hacked her account?
We can't afford it because it turns justice on its ear. Don't accuse her of a crime without evidence, try her and convict her simply because you disagree with what she stands for. The Democrats have argued correctly, at least in most cases, that President Bush is doing just what you are suggesting with civilians by arresting, charging and convicting them with no evidence as terrorists. What you are doing here is the same principle. Gather your evidence legally and present your case. If you can do that and show she has misused her government account then she should face the consequences...
And by violating the air-heads yahoo account, it was shown that Palin has -- just like the current republicans in the White House -- used a non-governmental email account to hide how she uses the powers given her by her office.
This is patently false. The article says the exact opposite. Go read it. The kid who did this claimed he found "nothing incriminating" in the account.
If you have another example outside of this incident, please cite your source but don't blatantly misrepresent the facts here.
Except: Palin was using her personal account for government work, which is illegal.
Show me where. As I've already noted earlier in this thread. The kid who got into her account found nothing incriminating. If you are going to make that accusation, show us something to back it up.
from the article:
"Rubico says he didnâ(TM)t find anything incriminating and the emails were actually fairly mundane family pictures and correspondence."
Tell me again where the government business on this account is?
Tell me also where there is a law that says an employee of the government is not entitled to private correspondence? I work for the state of Oregon. I have a government sponsored email account for use in my job. I also have multiple private accounts that can be used for private purposes...This kid seems to have gone into this account looking for incriminating or governmental business on this account (illegally, I might add) and found none. I see nothing wrong here.
You are still completely missing my point. I am not debating the rightness or wrongness of what our current President has done. He certainly has done many things that are bad for freedom in this country. You are absolutely correct about that. I am challenging your view that the current President is the worst ever, and I am providing historical references to back my points. Below are more details:
Congress never declared war in 1860 to fight the Confederacy. To do so would have given legitimacy to the idea that the Confederates could legally secede. You need to be a recognized country in order to have a war declared against you. Lincoln adamantly and violently opposed the idea of secession as illegal (which interestingly enough, the founding fathers supported...Several New England states actually had it written in explicitly that they had the right to secede, and they nearly did secede around the time of the War of 1812...Most of the founders including Jefferson and Madison all stated in their writings that they believed it was a state's right to secede from the Union if they felt the Federal Government no longer served their best interest).
Lincoln jailed nearly 100% of the newspaper editors who spoke against him. Lincoln jailed many thousands of civilians simply for wanting to let the South leave peacefully and daring to say so publicly. Lincoln had a US Congressman deported to the South for disagreeing with him (from Ohio, this Congressman traveled to Canada and later back to Ohio where he was nominated for governor by his party out of rage by the state's voters over what Lincoln did). None of these people got a trial as required by the Constitution because Lincoln suspended that right (This, my friend is Habeas Corpus). I haven't seen Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton or Charles Schumer deported to Canada or imprisoned yet for opposing President Bush...have you? I haven't seen the NY Times ransacked and burned by the US Army for writing editorials opposing President Bush, have you? I haven't seen all the peace protesters, who meet several times a week, up the road from where I live, ransacked by the army or police and tossed in prison. Oh, I should also mention that Lincoln ignored the terms of the Geneva Convention(yes it was passed before the Civil War started) in making so called war against the Confederacy and attacked civilians, including women and children with his armies all throughout the South. He gave approval to his leading generals, notably Grant, Sherman and Sheridan to burn cities and houses to the ground, destroy their crops, steal their personal belongings and kill or take their livestock for their own use. It took nearly 100 years for the South's economy to get back to where it was before the Civil War from this mass devastation. To be honest, in many ways, civil rights have never been the same since Lincoln. Many President's since have used Lincoln as precedent, including it seems, the current one, to usurp dictatorial powers during times of war
Lincoln did all these things by brute military force within his own country. After the Confederacy had been subjugated at gun-point, they were only allowed to re-enter the union to have federal representation by being forced to ratify the 14th amendment..yes, that amendment destroyed slavery, which was a good thing (in theory...as you will see in a moment, in practice, it didn't work so well-->) but it also allowed for the ransacking of those southern states for many years to come. Those states were ruled by military dictatorship and puppet governments for 14 years and the resentment of it by the South was such that when the military was finally withdrawn in 1877, the former African American's living in the south paid for it for nearly 100 years of Jim Crow laws and racism of the worst kind. In essence, while African Americans were not technically slaves, they were treated as poorly as ever making the said amendment worth much less than it should have been
It's all in the history books. Go read it! You wanna say Bush has destroyed freedoms and abused his office...fine, I'd agree. Just don't say he's the worst President ever. I have given potent examples of a President who has done far worse to this country than Bush...
Whether declared or not, people from 2 opposing factions are shooting at each other.
You're using semantics to try to invalidate my argument. My argument had nothing to do with whether a war was declared, was right, or was wrong. It had to do specifically with abuses of freedom by the federal government.
The Andrew Jackson example I gave, by the way, was in a time of peace. There was no declared war going on in the 1820s. You really need to read your history more.
"I can't imagine an administration doing much worse."
Lincoln imprisoned and silenced thousands of newspaper editors and citizens in the Northern States who went against his war agenda. Lincoln formally suspended the writ of habeus corpus to keep anyone imprisoned that he wanted (dissenters) without trial during the war.
Andrew Jackson directly and publicly defied a Supreme Court ruling that Native Americans could not be forced out of Florida(reference The Trail of Tears). His comment was: "The Supreme Court has ruled, now let them enforce it" and he promptly forced the Native Americans out of Florida.
While I certainly don't condone much of what the Bush administration has done, there are many historically documented examples of many US administrations doing as many or greater wrongs. Your statement is historically ignorant...and by the way, most left-wingers I have met have an immediate negative reaction to anyone that is labeled conservative without bothering to get to know them or ask about their views. My point is do not hate someone because of a label. This might be breaking news to you left wingers but many conservatives, including me, feel let down and betrayed by the current administration as well.
Bingo! Government of the people, by the people and for the people. That's how it was set up by our founding fathers, with appropriate checks and balances on all 3 sections of federal government. ...Much of which has been flushed down the proverbial crapper over the last 150 years w/ accelerated flushing in the last 15 or so years.
I have to disagree w/ your signature though. Taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens only lets criminals have a free reign.
"...authoritarian 'because I said so and I have a gun" mentality.'"
...and you wonder why some of us fight to keep the right to bear arms in this country. This is precisely what happens when you allow only police and military to carry weapons...the loss of freedom to the people.
Why shouldn't an administration be able to hire people on their side of the political fence? Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that President Clinton's administration didn't weed out conservatives from executive branch jobs? I can understand certain things such as race or gender being illegal to use as hiring factors but I would assume that a given administration would not want to hire attorneys who hate everything that administration stands for, whether the administration is conservative, liberal or anything in between.
What in the world are they trying to pull patenting a wish list. People store stuff in db's all the time. What right do they have to tell people how they store their own data.
You are right that the bill was intended that way but what people here are worried about is that there may be unintended consequences of the way in which the bill was worded.
I think this congressman who wrote this bill had very good intentions but it was obvious from TFA that he didn't do enough background homework on how this might affect some people he didn't intend for it to affect.
What I find interesting here is that this is a democratic congress that supposedly won their majority by campaigning on, amongst other things, the current administration's warrantless wiretap policies. That and even more interesting is that this judge was appointed by the current administration.
This seems very backwards to me. What is going on?
Leave a room of happy Linux machines, return with a miserable set of windows boxes. For the love of God, stop giving Billy Boy new ways to torture us...
You're right about it being a collection but what MrLogic was probably trying to point out is that about 2/3 of the New Testament is known to be authored by the Apostle Paul and at least 1 further book (Hebrews) while not directly attributed to anyone, is largely thought by many scholars to also be written by the Apostle Paul.
That said, the Bible has been published in basically every known language and I believe has more copies around than any other book and since Paul wrote more of the books of the Bible than any other individual contributor, MrLogic's claim of the Apostle Paul being one of the most successful authors in history is justifiable.
-rilian
In the real world, Collaboration is the rule, not the exception. You work with other people to solve problems, write code, get a job done...and you don't have to memorize everything to do it either. I see no problem with collaborating through face book unless the answers are being posted when they were explicitly asked not to. I guess I see a bigger problem with professors not allowing collaboration when that's the way the real world works.
Slashdot Mirror
If the computers in question can run a basic version of Vista...does that not make them "capable" of running vista? I hate Vista as much as the next guy and I think Microshaft was probably deceptive in the marketing campaign but I feel like I must be missing something here.
And what's the difference from them doing that with a GPLed program? Claiming patents on bits of it and suing you?
hmmm...sounds kinda like SCO. Interesting. ;-p
Don't tell me you actually think that people doing malicious hacking shouldn't be appropriately dealt with by the country whose laws they fucked over by hacking.... I mean, all you'd have to do is go to international waters and you could do all you wanted, to any country you wanted, to any server you wanted, and there would be no retribution.
In the 1700s, there were men (and a few women) who would do just that(except the server part)...they were called pirates. Many operated in the Caribbean, some at the Barbary Coast...some elsewhere. Generally the navy of whomever they offended would go out and shoot them to stop them.
The problem for the pirates was that while they could attack anyone...they pretty much were at the mercy of any country they attacked that decided to fight back. The difference with an internet hacker is that they sit nice and protected behind their own country while people steadfastly proclaim "no crime was committed here...how can you dare think to punish them".
Yes, you file for extradition. But if that doesn't work, what next? The target of these attacks was in the US. Just because the attacker wasn't, doesn't mean he or she should not be punished.
Go back and re-read my post. Both of you...My post advocates against the anti-gambling laws. It is not government's job to tell people not to gamble.
My point was that gambling can and does affect people besides the gambler. So do those other things mentioned such as gluttony, alchoholism, etc...I think from a personal level, people need to be aware how their decisions will affect those around them even when those decisions aren't illegal. Why is it so hard for you people to understand this?
...Gambling in all cases is a victimless crime as you have lost only what you have wagered...
Until you blow your rent/mortgage money, food money, life savings and your house...then it directly affects the gambler's family. Not so victimless anymore is it?
For the record, I am against this ruling. Kentucky has no business taking away domain names from someone way the heck outside their jurisdiction but gambling is known to be addictive and has caused massive problems for many, including losing money, houses, jobs and marriages. That said, instead of seizing domain names and outlawing gambling, the government should be warning people about the dangers of it.
Yep.. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,1000000097,2077456,00.htm
Fyodor of nmap fame writes an article on his site following up on this: http://insecure.org/stf/tcp-dos-attack-explained.html
...establishing the US as a Christian Theocracy (minus any real elements of Christianity) that will spread Jesus over the earth (minus the teaching of Jesus)
I think you have hit the crux of a big problem within Christian circles in this country. I think many liberals, though not all, would be far more accepting of Christians(I am one) and their beliefs if more of them actually followed Jesus' teachings more closely. It is my opinion that hypocracy by Christians, particularly but not limited to those who are more publicly visible, has caused notable damage to the perceived image of Christians as a whole. I have seen similar feelings from several others saying they don't mind Jesus so much as they mind what some of those who claim to be his followers are saying and doing.
All I ask is that you don't judge all Christians as a whole based on the actions of individuals. None of us are perfect.
The final note I have is that one of Jesus' main teachings was to share his message of his teachings, his death and his resurrection and hence the forgiveness of sins all over the world. It should be noted that this was not intended as a decree for his followers to force everyone in sight to become a Christian. Simply spread the Word...
The entire basis of our legal system is innocent until proven guilty. You're assuming guilty until proven innocent.
Show some real evidence, and I will be on your side.
How could we afford, as a nation, for this kid not to have hacked her account?
We can't afford it because it turns justice on its ear. Don't accuse her of a crime without evidence, try her and convict her simply because you disagree with what she stands for. The Democrats have argued correctly, at least in most cases, that President Bush is doing just what you are suggesting with civilians by arresting, charging and convicting them with no evidence as terrorists. What you are doing here is the same principle. Gather your evidence legally and present your case. If you can do that and show she has misused her government account then she should face the consequences...
And by violating the air-heads yahoo account, it was shown that Palin has -- just like the current republicans in the White House -- used a non-governmental email account to hide how she uses the powers given her by her office.
This is patently false. The article says the exact opposite. Go read it. The kid who did this claimed he found "nothing incriminating" in the account.
If you have another example outside of this incident, please cite your source but don't blatantly misrepresent the facts here.
Except: Palin was using her personal account for government work, which is illegal.
Show me where. As I've already noted earlier in this thread. The kid who got into her account found nothing incriminating. If you are going to make that accusation, show us something to back it up.
from the article:
"Rubico says he didnâ(TM)t find anything incriminating and the emails were actually fairly mundane family pictures and correspondence."
Tell me again where the government business on this account is? Tell me also where there is a law that says an employee of the government is not entitled to private correspondence? I work for the state of Oregon. I have a government sponsored email account for use in my job. I also have multiple private accounts that can be used for private purposes...This kid seems to have gone into this account looking for incriminating or governmental business on this account (illegally, I might add) and found none. I see nothing wrong here.
You are still completely missing my point. I am not debating the rightness or wrongness of what our current President has done. He certainly has done many things that are bad for freedom in this country. You are absolutely correct about that. I am challenging your view that the current President is the worst ever, and I am providing historical references to back my points. Below are more details:
Congress never declared war in 1860 to fight the Confederacy. To do so would have given legitimacy to the idea that the Confederates could legally secede. You need to be a recognized country in order to have a war declared against you. Lincoln adamantly and violently opposed the idea of secession as illegal (which interestingly enough, the founding fathers supported...Several New England states actually had it written in explicitly that they had the right to secede, and they nearly did secede around the time of the War of 1812...Most of the founders including Jefferson and Madison all stated in their writings that they believed it was a state's right to secede from the Union if they felt the Federal Government no longer served their best interest).
Lincoln jailed nearly 100% of the newspaper editors who spoke against him. Lincoln jailed many thousands of civilians simply for wanting to let the South leave peacefully and daring to say so publicly. Lincoln had a US Congressman deported to the South for disagreeing with him (from Ohio, this Congressman traveled to Canada and later back to Ohio where he was nominated for governor by his party out of rage by the state's voters over what Lincoln did). None of these people got a trial as required by the Constitution because Lincoln suspended that right (This, my friend is Habeas Corpus). I haven't seen Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton or Charles Schumer deported to Canada or imprisoned yet for opposing President Bush...have you? I haven't seen the NY Times ransacked and burned by the US Army for writing editorials opposing President Bush, have you? I haven't seen all the peace protesters, who meet several times a week, up the road from where I live, ransacked by the army or police and tossed in prison. Oh, I should also mention that Lincoln ignored the terms of the Geneva Convention(yes it was passed before the Civil War started) in making so called war against the Confederacy and attacked civilians, including women and children with his armies all throughout the South. He gave approval to his leading generals, notably Grant, Sherman and Sheridan to burn cities and houses to the ground, destroy their crops, steal their personal belongings and kill or take their livestock for their own use. It took nearly 100 years for the South's economy to get back to where it was before the Civil War from this mass devastation. To be honest, in many ways, civil rights have never been the same since Lincoln. Many President's since have used Lincoln as precedent, including it seems, the current one, to usurp dictatorial powers during times of war
Lincoln did all these things by brute military force within his own country. After the Confederacy had been subjugated at gun-point, they were only allowed to re-enter the union to have federal representation by being forced to ratify the 14th amendment..yes, that amendment destroyed slavery, which was a good thing (in theory...as you will see in a moment, in practice, it didn't work so well-->) but it also allowed for the ransacking of those southern states for many years to come. Those states were ruled by military dictatorship and puppet governments for 14 years and the resentment of it by the South was such that when the military was finally withdrawn in 1877, the former African American's living in the south paid for it for nearly 100 years of Jim Crow laws and racism of the worst kind. In essence, while African Americans were not technically slaves, they were treated as poorly as ever making the said amendment worth much less than it should have been
It's all in the history books. Go read it! You wanna say Bush has destroyed freedoms and abused his office...fine, I'd agree. Just don't say he's the worst President ever. I have given potent examples of a President who has done far worse to this country than Bush...
Whether declared or not, people from 2 opposing factions are shooting at each other.
You're using semantics to try to invalidate my argument. My argument had nothing to do with whether a war was declared, was right, or was wrong. It had to do specifically with abuses of freedom by the federal government.
The Andrew Jackson example I gave, by the way, was in a time of peace. There was no declared war going on in the 1820s. You really need to read your history more.
"I can't imagine an administration doing much worse."
..and by the way, most left-wingers I have met have an immediate negative reaction to anyone that is labeled conservative without bothering to get to know them or ask about their views. My point is do not hate someone because of a label. This might be breaking news to you left wingers but many conservatives, including me, feel let down and betrayed by the current administration as well.
Lincoln imprisoned and silenced thousands of newspaper editors and citizens in the Northern States who went against his war agenda. Lincoln formally suspended the writ of habeus corpus to keep anyone imprisoned that he wanted (dissenters) without trial during the war.
Andrew Jackson directly and publicly defied a Supreme Court ruling that Native Americans could not be forced out of Florida(reference The Trail of Tears). His comment was: "The Supreme Court has ruled, now let them enforce it" and he promptly forced the Native Americans out of Florida.
While I certainly don't condone much of what the Bush administration has done, there are many historically documented examples of many US administrations doing as many or greater wrongs. Your statement is historically ignorant.
Bingo! Government of the people, by the people and for the people. That's how it was set up by our founding fathers, with appropriate checks and balances on all 3 sections of federal government.
...Much of which has been flushed down the proverbial crapper over the last 150 years w/ accelerated flushing in the last 15 or so years.
I have to disagree w/ your signature though. Taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens only lets criminals have a free reign.
"...authoritarian 'because I said so and I have a gun" mentality.'"
...and you wonder why some of us fight to keep the right to bear arms in this country. This is precisely what happens when you allow only police and military to carry weapons...the loss of freedom to the people.
Why shouldn't an administration be able to hire people on their side of the political fence? Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that President Clinton's administration didn't weed out conservatives from executive branch jobs? I can understand certain things such as race or gender being illegal to use as hiring factors but I would assume that a given administration would not want to hire attorneys who hate everything that administration stands for, whether the administration is conservative, liberal or anything in between.
What in the world are they trying to pull patenting a wish list. People store stuff in db's all the time. What right do they have to tell people how they store their own data.
This is ridiculous...
You are right that the bill was intended that way but what people here are worried about is that there may be unintended consequences of the way in which the bill was worded.
I think this congressman who wrote this bill had very good intentions but it was obvious from TFA that he didn't do enough background homework on how this might affect some people he didn't intend for it to affect.
What I find interesting here is that this is a democratic congress that supposedly won their majority by campaigning on, amongst other things, the current administration's warrantless wiretap policies. That and even more interesting is that this judge was appointed by the current administration. This seems very backwards to me. What is going on?
Then we've got nothing to worry about.
Unless they get infected with a virus and start wiping us out...;-pYou're right about it being a collection but what MrLogic was probably trying to point out is that about 2/3 of the New Testament is known to be authored by the Apostle Paul and at least 1 further book (Hebrews) while not directly attributed to anyone, is largely thought by many scholars to also be written by the Apostle Paul. That said, the Bible has been published in basically every known language and I believe has more copies around than any other book and since Paul wrote more of the books of the Bible than any other individual contributor, MrLogic's claim of the Apostle Paul being one of the most successful authors in history is justifiable. -rilian
In the real world, Collaboration is the rule, not the exception. You work with other people to solve problems, write code, get a job done...and you don't have to memorize everything to do it either. I see no problem with collaborating through face book unless the answers are being posted when they were explicitly asked not to. I guess I see a bigger problem with professors not allowing collaboration when that's the way the real world works.