Just because you didn't invite your neighbors to use your network doesn't mean you aren't responsible for it.
And for you "the net wants to be free - I share my WiFi on purpose" crowd - same thing goes. You might very well be responsible for how your "free" network gets used. Just the same as you would be responsible for a pile of hammers in your front yard that say "Free - use as you wish".
They [freedoms] come from a system designed to protect them [terrorists? freedoms?].
While I agree with the rule-are-rules crowd, and certainly agree that changing our rules opens things up for abuse, that is the paradox. "If we give up our freedoms, the terrorists win!". Of course this is true, but corollary is "If the terrorists win, they will take your freedoms."
Dealing with human societies and politics just suck. That's why I am a geek. Things are more complicated than what can be solved by slashdotters tossing banter about.
All I am saying is philosophical and pragmatic issues don't mesh perfectly.
I don't know what the answer is, but As a geek, you have to admit that seeming good "systems" can go horribly wrong. (Subtle tipping points, chaotic interactions, etc.)
As a simple example; Let's stipulate that you have a Happy Island Civilization (HIC). Now the Hics are happy productive pacificts, and have strong laws against meddling in other's affairs. To punish someone to the full extent of the law you need a photograph of them performing the lawless act. Furthermore, you have strong protection of freedom of religion wherein you must honor the beliefs of the religious. It is strictly against the law to kill people.
So, one day, God himself tells some bothersome other (Bo) to kill all the Hics. So, Bo moves to the island, and starts slashing the throats of the Hics during the night. Even though he clearly has a bloody knife the next morning, noone SAW him do anything, so nothing can be done. One night, a security camera catches Bo in the act, but the photo has to be destroyed on religious gounds, by the Hics own rules that Bo can't be photographed.
This goes on for quite some time, Hics getting killed, one by one...
One day, some of the Hics get pissed off enough to get together a lynch mob and take care of Bo. They don't talk about it, and since noone saw the mob do anything, no-harm no-foul.
So, while the rules haven't formally changed, the rules tacitly Hic society did what was necessary to insure it's survival.
We don't even need to posit such societies. The real world has seen many societal interactions which ended with devistating results for one civilization over another when one plays by different rules.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So, the way I see it, you have a couple of possible outcomes of actual action taken from alleged phone records analysis.
1) You are a regular joe. Nothing of interest ever happens in your phone records. Nothing happens.
2) You are a bad person. Maybe your records are used to make a note that someone else ought to take a look at you, maybe without mentioning the fact that these phone records are what raised the flag. This is the grey area.
3) You are a very very very bad person, and something very very bad, and possibly unconsitutional, but well deserved happens to you. No one will ever know.
IANAL and all that, but it seems to me a key clause in the 4th is "unreasonable"... Judges change from time to time, but it is a good thing Constitutional matters aren't heard by juries, because what the public thinks is reasonable keeps getting stupider and stupider as time goes on. (At least I am pretty sure about that, let me call my psychic hotline circle of freinds and ask their opinion.)
when the Powerball gets really high and I see all these people rushing out to spend hundreds of dollars on tickets.. thinking they are making an investment or that they are increasing their chances.
Technically, you are better off spending, say $52 on lotto tickets on one draw where the prize is "big", rather than one per week, when the prize is way too low vs the odds.
1 ticket = 1 chance in 142 million, 2 tickets = 1 chance in 71 million, etc... assuming you don't pick the same numbers on each ticket, of course:-)
BTW - in Vegas, I think they only look to see if you have over 20$ in play... then you get free drinks. I figure I make about $6/hr playing video poker, with what I am willing to wager. It is not a loss, but not better than flipping burgers. However, it is much better than most people do in Vegas. I'm with you, I'd prefer to spend money to see Penn & Teller or something, not watch it dwindle on losing propositions.
Lottos (and Slot Machines) are crappy games, odds-wise, but they are worth a buck, once in a while, if you can afford it, but no more than that. If it was your day to get hit by lightning while being stung by a bee - maybe you will win, you'll need it to pay the hospital bills...
My favorite saying, "You can't lose if you don't play." My second favorite, when buying a lotto ticket - "Yes, only one, that way I only lose a dollar.".
Remember, the Powerball Lotto is not "a fair bet" until the jackpot approches $300M, or so (taxes not included).
You already seem to have a firm grasp on the time value of money and the tax issue. Just thought I'd toss in a buck of cold odds.
("Fair Bet" defined as expected payout = cost. E.g. 1/142 millionth of a dollar per dollar wagered.)
I used my neighbor's DSL for over a year... - With his permission? But probably against his TOS.
There is no reason every house on a block should purchase their own Internet connection... Yeah, and maybe you should all share one cable TV hookup too.
The reason is because the providers of those services are selling them for use by one household per subscription.
As far as I can tell, this ruling would not apply to physically editing a tape. The problem (for the censor service) is that you can't cut-n-paste a DVD, but you CAN cut-n-splice a tape. There would not be a problem with that - no copy of the tape has been made, only fair use of the owned media.
Don't forget false alarms too. If a tsunami warning is sounded and no significant tsunami materializes there will be all kinds of lawsuits about lost business, or damages and injuries during the retreat, etc.
Oh, wait, this is in the Indian Ocean region, not the USA...
What ever happened to the old "you can't prove a negative"?
Seems to me in most matters legal, the burden is on the plaintif to prove the defendant did something. Said defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and need not testify on his own behalf... for or against himself.
Lawyer: You are not licensed.
User: Prove it.
Lawyer: We have no record of you having purchased a license.
User: I can't help it if you have shotty book-keeping.
News flash - the world has always worked "that way"... until recently. It largely because of European (western) sensibilities that the world is more civilized now that it ever was in any past, however rosy your glasses.
Don't for a second think that any race has a monopoly on bad behavior.
There is no race anywhere that has a past free of committing "depradations" on their neighbors.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but some areas DO put utilities underground.
However, I doubt it is because it is cheaper - it is only because it is required (by local ordinance).
In California, even though property taxes are limited by law (to protect the innocent fixed income people whose only crime was to buy property in an appreciating area), it doesn't mean the legislature hasn't figured out how to tax more anyhow... google "Mello-Roos" to see how some pay more taxes than others.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because you didn't invite your neighbors to use your network doesn't mean you aren't responsible for it.
And for you "the net wants to be free - I share my WiFi on purpose" crowd - same thing goes. You might very well be responsible for how your "free" network gets used. Just the same as you would be responsible for a pile of hammers in your front yard that say "Free - use as you wish".
While I agree with the rule-are-rules crowd, and certainly agree that changing our rules opens things up for abuse, that is the paradox. "If we give up our freedoms, the terrorists win!". Of course this is true, but corollary is "If the terrorists win, they will take your freedoms."
Dealing with human societies and politics just suck. That's why I am a geek. Things are more complicated than what can be solved by slashdotters tossing banter about.
All I am saying is philosophical and pragmatic issues don't mesh perfectly.
I don't know what the answer is, but As a geek, you have to admit that seeming good "systems" can go horribly wrong. (Subtle tipping points, chaotic interactions, etc.)
As a simple example; Let's stipulate that you have a Happy Island Civilization (HIC). Now the Hics are happy productive pacificts, and have strong laws against meddling in other's affairs. To punish someone to the full extent of the law you need a photograph of them performing the lawless act. Furthermore, you have strong protection of freedom of religion wherein you must honor the beliefs of the religious. It is strictly against the law to kill people.
So, one day, God himself tells some bothersome other (Bo) to kill all the Hics. So, Bo moves to the island, and starts slashing the throats of the Hics during the night. Even though he clearly has a bloody knife the next morning, noone SAW him do anything, so nothing can be done. One night, a security camera catches Bo in the act, but the photo has to be destroyed on religious gounds, by the Hics own rules that Bo can't be photographed.
This goes on for quite some time, Hics getting killed, one by one...
One day, some of the Hics get pissed off enough to get together a lynch mob and take care of Bo. They don't talk about it, and since noone saw the mob do anything, no-harm no-foul.
So, while the rules haven't formally changed, the rules tacitly Hic society did what was necessary to insure it's survival.
We don't even need to posit such societies. The real world has seen many societal interactions which ended with devistating results for one civilization over another when one plays by different rules.
Just what we need - a pill that turns someone into a know-it-all.
So, the way I see it, you have a couple of possible outcomes of actual action taken from alleged phone records analysis.
1) You are a regular joe. Nothing of interest ever happens in your phone records. Nothing happens.
2) You are a bad person. Maybe your records are used to make a note that someone else ought to take a look at you, maybe without mentioning the fact that these phone records are what raised the flag. This is the grey area.
3) You are a very very very bad person, and something very very bad, and possibly unconsitutional, but well deserved happens to you. No one will ever know.
IANAL and all that, but it seems to me a key clause in the 4th is "unreasonable"... Judges change from time to time, but it is a good thing Constitutional matters aren't heard by juries, because what the public thinks is reasonable keeps getting stupider and stupider as time goes on. (At least I am pretty sure about that, let me call my psychic hotline circle of freinds and ask their opinion.)
Nah, it's all software. Look around you might find a torrent of it somewhere.
I have a lot of good code, ready for re-use!
What makes you think an AI can't have drive?
Please define drive. As a bonus, show your work.
Technically, you are better off spending, say $52 on lotto tickets on one draw where the prize is "big", rather than one per week, when the prize is way too low vs the odds.
1 ticket = 1 chance in 142 million, 2 tickets = 1 chance in 71 million, etc... assuming you don't pick the same numbers on each ticket, of course :-)
BTW - in Vegas, I think they only look to see if you have over 20$ in play... then you get free drinks. I figure I make about $6/hr playing video poker, with what I am willing to wager. It is not a loss, but not better than flipping burgers. However, it is much better than most people do in Vegas. I'm with you, I'd prefer to spend money to see Penn & Teller or something, not watch it dwindle on losing propositions.
Lottos (and Slot Machines) are crappy games, odds-wise, but they are worth a buck, once in a while, if you can afford it, but no more than that. If it was your day to get hit by lightning while being stung by a bee - maybe you will win, you'll need it to pay the hospital bills...
Remember, the Powerball Lotto is not "a fair bet" until the jackpot approches $300M, or so (taxes not included).
You already seem to have a firm grasp on the time value of money and the tax issue. Just thought I'd toss in a buck of cold odds.
("Fair Bet" defined as expected payout = cost. E.g. 1/142 millionth of a dollar per dollar wagered.)
There is no reason every house on a block should purchase their own Internet connection... Yeah, and maybe you should all share one cable TV hookup too.
The reason is because the providers of those services are selling them for use by one household per subscription.
No, I didn't RTFA, but I was just wondering if floundering companies made bad deals trying to fix their troubles.
In the Old Boys Network, sure, a lot is who you know, but you still have to go through the motions and jump through the hoops.
Let's see, that's four cliches in once sentence!
What's the dullest object ever made?
Why the hell was THAT modded Insightful?
Yes, your data will die, but in the given scenario, it will mutate to a virus and EVERYONE (and his cat) will have your data.
Because we know that terrorists would never want access to government facilities... and they would certainly not stoop to applying as a mere intern.
* Insert your value for eventually to see if doomed applies to you.
As far as I can tell, this ruling would not apply to physically editing a tape. The problem (for the censor service) is that you can't cut-n-paste a DVD, but you CAN cut-n-splice a tape. There would not be a problem with that - no copy of the tape has been made, only fair use of the owned media.
Oh, wait, this is in the Indian Ocean region, not the USA...
Seems to me in most matters legal, the burden is on the plaintif to prove the defendant did something. Said defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and need not testify on his own behalf... for or against himself.
Lawyer: You are not licensed.
User: Prove it.
Lawyer: We have no record of you having purchased a license.
User: I can't help it if you have shotty book-keeping.
etc.
Don't for a second think that any race has a monopoly on bad behavior.
There is no race anywhere that has a past free of committing "depradations" on their neighbors.
Ok, I didn't spend too long looking, but if there is a story about an icon wouldn't there be a picture?
No icon, no judgement on it's merits or lack thereof.
And, we all know, I'd be able to fix things in a jiffy, given omnipotent power for a few hours.
However, I doubt it is because it is cheaper - it is only because it is required (by local ordinance).
In California, even though property taxes are limited by law (to protect the innocent fixed income people whose only crime was to buy property in an appreciating area), it doesn't mean the legislature hasn't figured out how to tax more anyhow... google "Mello-Roos" to see how some pay more taxes than others.
What? Do you think it would be cheaper to put lines underground?
No, I do not have the numbers, but the folks who put the lines on poles do... of that I am sure.