One network admin job is not the same as one UAW job, just like one farm hand is not one textile job. I don't blame him for the recession, the.com bust did that. I blame him for having almost 4 years to fix the problem, and producing more excuses than results.
Uh oh. Looks like we've got some hard line Republicans with mod points who consider anything that not Bush Boot Licking to be flaming. It's ok, I've got karma to spare.
A President who blames his inability to turn around an economy in 4 years on the last administration and a terrorist attack 3 years ago. Why is it that whenever I hear the administration talk, all they have is either excuses or a goal and no plan to reach it? Fuck politicans. We need a President who's an acomplished economist and sociologist, not a would-be theologist.
I thought Bush has created more jobs, and that the recession was over. I can't believe the Washington Post would try to sneak such false statements into the transcript of the Presidents address at the RNC. They must be French owned.
Your link is broken. $300 is the MSRP. Check Amazon, Microsoft, and Best Buy websites. An OEM copy would work too, but you still need 2 copies of all your software. Regardless of your choice, this still costs more than their target market will pay.
Considering the market that they are targeting, the single largest expense is not the hardware but the software. A full version of XP Pro costs $300 and a full copy of Office 2003 costs $400. Sure, you can get volume discounts, possibly even upgrades, but considering most OEM's offer low end office PC's for the same price as a full version of 2003, you can see how the hardware isn't the biggest concern if you are aiming at the business value market. An effective API layer for Linux that supports the most common business apps could pull in more money. Also, before anyone brings it up, Crossover Office needs a bit more work and a stronger reputation before it would be considered as a common business solution.
It's very understandable that younger people are easily entertained. Just look at how much money can be made by cutting funding to screen writers and diverting the money to the CG department. I call it the "Shiney Nickel Effect". Special effects back when the first 3 were produced were not anything near what's available today. As a result, directors and producers had to rely more on practical action sequences, good dialogue, and a captivating story line. Modern film making techniques put CG special effects as a higher priority than the other 3 aspects. Personally, I'll take Blade Runner over any Sci-fi film made since then.
Lucas is going to milk this story for all it's worth. He won't be satisfied until Star Wars is the campiest sci-fi series ever put on film. If he would have stopped after the first 3 movies, he would have been remembered as one of the greatest sci-fi producers ever. After the first 2 new episodes came out, the franchise has started to become the ass end of sci-fi jokes. I don't see another 3 improving the image of the series.
It's a long shot. I've had so many computers between now and then, the only chance is if I can find the 3.5 floppy I saved it to. If I can find it I will post a second reply so you know.
What's the big deal. My old school banned WAPs too. Only the ones the university set up were allowed to be on campus. I mean the last thing you want is to secure your system just to find out some freshmen has setup a WAP with no security.
Here is a link to a story demonatrating how the media can legally lie. The website was posted on/. a few days ago. Regardless of your opinion of Fox News, the case law speaks for itself and applies to all news outlets. Generally speaking, if any outlet touts itself as unbiased, it is a good time to start considering them liars. All media is inheriently biased. The best solution to this dilema to to get information from the broadest possible spectrum of sources so that you can form an educated opinion for yourself instead of relying on the premanfactured opinions of like minded sources. Simply ignoring something because you don't like it hurts no one but yourself. You wouldn't see a debate between two politicians who didn't research the other side. If they didn't, how would they know what the other persons talking points are, and how to formulate a good response?
Which argument would carry more weight in a discussion with your peers: "I don't like the director so I won't see it; it's a completely false movie" or "I've seen the movie and here is a list of points I disagree agree with and why"? Moore has already stated that he doesn't care if people download his film, as long as it's not being distributed for profit. Why not download it? Next time this argument comes up on/. you can list specific details that you disagree with instead of disagreeing on simple politics.
So you don't trust your neighbors to be intelligent enough to watch a biased movie and see it as such? Free speech is a guarantee to say what's on your mind, not a guarantee to have an audience. If it does air on a local station, there are many alternative things to do besides watch the idiot box all day. Besides, according to conservative values, the family shouldn't revolve around the TV. Take the family out to dinner, go see a movie, fire up the grill, whatever; there are many other worthwile things to do. Just because your mind is set doesn't mean that others don't enjoy a good debate. The beauty of freedom is that you can decide for yourself what to put in your mind instead of being regulated by the status quo.
But if a major network plays this movie, I will count them as having NO capability of having unbiased news reporting at all.
What? When did you ever see the news as unbiased? Anything that passes through mans' mind gets a spin; every last thing. It shouldn't be too much to ask that a reasonable person come to a reasonable decision after hearing ALL sides of an argument.
one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation
I don't recall any plans to stop airing Fox News or stop circulation of the NYT before the election. I'm sure, as always, most people have their mind set and won't even consider any other opinion. The movie has already got so much national recognition that people won't be fooled into watching it; with less than 30 seconds of viewing anyone should be able to figure out which film this is. Besides, if there was any doubt in a persons mind to the extent that a movie carried more weight than the words of the President, perhaps that person shouldn't be voting for Bush anyway. Have we devolved to the state where we can not trust the intelligence of the average voter, so appointed officials should decide what to forbid them to see?
It's very understandable that opinions at work should me moderated. A person is being paid to perform a task, and anything but constructive criticism followed by a solution needs to be tempered. School is a different situation all together; we teach kids to respect diversity and the opinions of others, yet live in a society that rewards conformity. Good students are considered to be children that absorb what is taught and believe in the system they are raised in, yet people who ask serious questions and criticize mediocre curriculum are labeled rebel rousers and are demeaned. As I mentioned in a previous post, I was required to read a book called "The McDonaldization of Society" for an analytical writing class, but it is required reading for most sociology classes. It opened my eyes to why the society we live in behaves the way it does. It also speaks closely to our educational system and it's "rewards for conformity" based politics. Here is a link to a good summary of chapters. In fact, part of the argument I use above is a simplification of several pages of the book.
What they did was perfectly legal. My senior year (2000) was in the shadow of Columbine and subject to the knee-jerk reaction that followed. Anything, no matter how remote, could be a weapon. The clippers had a built in nail file. It was categorized like a knife would be. All medicine, OTC or not, had to be accompanied by a doctors note and left in the nurses office. It was classified as an illicit drug. The fact the purse was not mine didn't matter, it was in my possession. I was also not the only one to be suspended for the same or similar circumstances. A few weeks before, an honor student was suspended because she had chronic migraines and as found to have Excedrin in her purse. Needless to say, they were looking for people to make an example of.
Another policy the school district had was called "Quick 50". Anyone could report an anonymous threat through any school staffer (janitor, bus driver, teacher, etc). They, in turn, would report it to the administration with no obligation to reveal their informant. If the tip resulted in the discovery of a weapon or drugs (with a street value over $50), the staff member would get the money who was then obligated to turn it over to the informant anonymously. Whether or not drugs or weapons were found, the subject of the search was required to take a mandatory drug test in the nurse's office. A positive result was not retested for accuracy, and the person was suspended for a week if they promised 30 hours of "voluntary" rehab. Otherwise it was a 4 week suspension. The rehab location sanctioned by the school cost upwards of $50/hour. Needless to say, this program quickly became a way for students to retaliate against their enemys. I was searched based on a "Quick 50' tip, which was fabricated by the administration despite it being unable to verify because of the anonymous nature of the system.
Why is it that religion or patriotism is looked down upon and stopped right away for our own safety but I can't go anywhere on campus without seeing people on hard illegal drugs?
A good patriot never stops asking questions so they can become part of the status quo. Bush tried to redefine "patriotism" as agreeing with our government. Imagine if the founding fathers had that same mentality. Religion is not stopped "right away". Anyone can practice their particular beliefs anytime, anywhere, as long as it doesn't interfere with people who don't care to take part. Imagine how out of place you would feel being part of the religious minority if your public school required you to pray in Arabic 7 times a day. Imagine how much you would have been singled out and picked on for not taking part.
Now I'm not sure how you equate teacher led prayer to sniffing coke in the bathroom, but there are too many differences to examine in detail. In school, you are forced to be present. You are also part of a younger age group that taunts non-conformists. In a bathroom, you can always step out while making some excuse (such as I get tested for work). Besides, what do you care if a bunch of addicts call you names? I also doubt that any of your anecdotes are personal experience since they smack of cliché I hear regularly. When I was in college, it was always the "good Christians" who were dealers, users, or sluts; but that's a debate I don't care to start since it hinges upon the "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality. Obviously you've never spent any time at a Catholic school.
And always, if you don't like what's going on in your schools extracurricular activities, you are free to leave the room and not participate. That is why schools can sanction the Fellowship of Christian Athletes fo after hours events, but must restrict led prayer during regular hours. In one case you can choose not to be present, the other you can not.
Indianapolis, at the edge of the Bible Belt. I had some great teachers too, but most of the other ones were "broken" by the system. It's hard to take lessons from someone who has lost the passion for their job. The excellent teachers were also the ones that were usually in regular trouble with the school district.
When I got to IU, my first class was Analytical Writing (W131), which is a freshman level class that is mandatory for most universities (probably called something different at other schools). I always loved writing, but the hardest thing is teaching someone to think for themselves. Imagine my surprise when I put my best effort into the first paper and got a C. High School did not prepare me the slightest bit in respect to actually analyzing the writings of authors. I never got beyond taking words at their face value.
The first book that I read and analyzed in its entirety was "The McDonaldization of Society" by George Ritzer. It's more of a sociology book, but it has elements that speak indirectly about what's happening to our schools and society, and why. It's definitely a good read if you have the spare time. Here are some links about it. If you read it, please reply back to this thread and let me know if you live in a rubber, velvet, or iron cage. Read the book so you know what I mean.
Religious secularism and prayer in school are total fabrications. Under existing laws, neither teachers nor students canlead a group in prayer. However, any student can freely exercise their freedom of religion in school by finding a quiet place to pray alone. I went to school with several Muslim students who freely permitted to step out of the room in the middle of the lesson so that they may pray as commanded by their religion.
The reason that it is important that nobody lead a group of students in prayer is because it would be a reflection of what happens during the pledge of allegiance. Anyone can look around the room and see who is not participating. We all know kids are great at picking out small differences between their peers, and exploiting them to pick on the person and make them feel bad. Lead prayer in school is just another way for children to pick out the non-conformists. The biggest difference is that, from a young age, children are taught to be particularly fierce about religion. Tolerance is not one of the regular highlights of Sunday School.
Political literature in school is rather dry and taught very matter-of-factly. It usually steers clear of any heated controversy and also fails to point out that there are serious flaws with America's political system. Considering that it hasn't been revised since the original authoring, this isn't a big surprise; but public schools teach children to remember, not to think. When I was in school, during a U.S. History class, I asked my teacher why election law hasn't evolved in the last 200+ years. I continued by indicating that in a consumer based economy that people are not satisfied with only two choices, but the two choice mentality permeates our political system. He responded by reminding us that there were more than two parties. When I elaborated that the electoral system can mathematically support only a two party majority, he quickly deflected my questions by reminding us that there are countries where people don't get to vote at all. It was a true statement, but not an answer to why our system works the way it does.
That day I went home and wrote a short essay on our political parties, their differences, and their common ground. For the common ground section I explained that our electoral system will never change because both parties agree that they want it to stay a two party system. They've been playing this game for over 150 years, and they know it well. They fear having to contend with a third, or even fourth, candidate who stands a fair chance. Even though runoff, direct elections are more representative of a multicultural system like ours, both parties have no interest in sharing their power.
I went to the copy store and ran off about 1000 copies to distribute to the upperclassmen and stuck them to cars, lockers, and handed them out in the halls. Later that day I was pulled out of class by a Sheriff and the Dean of students. I was searched, and so was my locker and car. They said they had gotten a tip about me bringing a gun to school. While my locker was being emptied in to the all, I asked the Dean what he thought about my essay. He said that productive members of society need to feel safe and secure about their [perceived] power in America's political system, and that people "like me" raise dissent and cause people to lose their faith in our system. Right about this time they pull out my girlfriend's purse, which I picked up after she forgot it at the lunch table. Inside they found a bottle of Midol and some nail clippers. I received a one week suspension for each. As a result, I could not make up the work or tests that I missed. Four weeks later I graduated 8th in my class with 4 missing tests and 13 missing assignments.
Actually I'm against extradition from any country for any non-felonious crimes. The fact that copyright infringement is a felony only serves to demonstrate how law in America is fast becoming a whore to corporations. I'm all for artists controlling their creations, but for a limited time. Besides, most times it's not even the artists doing this. It's large corporations that hold the rights. It's the business of art. That just sounds wrong, like the business of faith.
In this case, the victim, can only say "I may have lost revenue when he distributed copyrighted works." That is, of course, assuming that these people would have bought it had they not been able to download it. The admin at MIT can say "He rooted my boxes. I had to stay up over night, patch, and reset them." How many hundreds of thousands has the DoJ spent on him so far, and how much more are they willing to pay? Do you feel safer in your daily life now that he's probably going to jail? Is Australia's justice system so inept that he could not have been prosecuted under their laws? This is another case of America throwing its weight around just because it can. After the last 4 years we should be trying to regain our friends, so we don't have to wait for another national tragedy for the world to stand behind us.
The reason I'm upset about it is that you will never see America extradite one of its citizens for copyright infringement. We will make him stand trial here. A few years back a diplomat for Georgia (the country) was driving drunk and hit a child in D.C. The government got his country to drop his diplomatic status so he could stand trial here. A few years later, an American diplomat was driving drunk in Western Europe and hit a child. The U.S. refused to drop his immunity, and recalled him. He has never stood trial for his crime. I see the copyright situation as the continuation of our hard headed, one sided, political ideal logy.
They sue the university since they are the ISP. Some schools will turn over names to deflect the lawsuits, others don't. And if p2p traffic can bog down your schools internal network, they probably haven't upgraded it since the 80s. That's just a symptom of a future problem.
Slashdot Mirror
One network admin job is not the same as one UAW job, just like one farm hand is not one textile job. I don't blame him for the recession, the .com bust did that. I blame him for having almost 4 years to fix the problem, and producing more excuses than results.
Uh oh. Looks like we've got some hard line Republicans with mod points who consider anything that not Bush Boot Licking to be flaming. It's ok, I've got karma to spare.
I thought Bush has created more jobs, and that the recession was over. I can't believe the Washington Post would try to sneak such false statements into the transcript of the Presidents address at the RNC. They must be French owned.
BTW, Here is a login for the Post.
And before anyone get's pissy, may I remind people that flamers are joyless, humorless, SOB's. Don't trust a person who can't laugh.
Then how is this different than multiple user profiles in XP, OSX, or Linux?
Your link is broken. $300 is the MSRP. Check Amazon, Microsoft, and Best Buy websites. An OEM copy would work too, but you still need 2 copies of all your software. Regardless of your choice, this still costs more than their target market will pay.
Considering the market that they are targeting, the single largest expense is not the hardware but the software. A full version of XP Pro costs $300 and a full copy of Office 2003 costs $400. Sure, you can get volume discounts, possibly even upgrades, but considering most OEM's offer low end office PC's for the same price as a full version of 2003, you can see how the hardware isn't the biggest concern if you are aiming at the business value market. An effective API layer for Linux that supports the most common business apps could pull in more money. Also, before anyone brings it up, Crossover Office needs a bit more work and a stronger reputation before it would be considered as a common business solution.
Try the Google cache.
Quote from the Safari website:
"Safari uses open source software for its web page rendering engine, Safari draws on KHTML and KJS software from the KDE open source project."
Technically, Safari is an OSX port of a Linux rendering engine.
It's very understandable that younger people are easily entertained. Just look at how much money can be made by cutting funding to screen writers and diverting the money to the CG department. I call it the "Shiney Nickel Effect". Special effects back when the first 3 were produced were not anything near what's available today. As a result, directors and producers had to rely more on practical action sequences, good dialogue, and a captivating story line. Modern film making techniques put CG special effects as a higher priority than the other 3 aspects. Personally, I'll take Blade Runner over any Sci-fi film made since then.
Lucas is going to milk this story for all it's worth. He won't be satisfied until Star Wars is the campiest sci-fi series ever put on film. If he would have stopped after the first 3 movies, he would have been remembered as one of the greatest sci-fi producers ever. After the first 2 new episodes came out, the franchise has started to become the ass end of sci-fi jokes. I don't see another 3 improving the image of the series.
It's a long shot. I've had so many computers between now and then, the only chance is if I can find the 3.5 floppy I saved it to. If I can find it I will post a second reply so you know.
What's the big deal. My old school banned WAPs too. Only the ones the university set up were allowed to be on campus. I mean the last thing you want is to secure your system just to find out some freshmen has setup a WAP with no security.
Here is a link to a story demonatrating how the media can legally lie. The website was posted on /. a few days ago. Regardless of your opinion of Fox News, the case law speaks for itself and applies to all news outlets. Generally speaking, if any outlet touts itself as unbiased, it is a good time to start considering them liars. All media is inheriently biased. The best solution to this dilema to to get information from the broadest possible spectrum of sources so that you can form an educated opinion for yourself instead of relying on the premanfactured opinions of like minded sources. Simply ignoring something because you don't like it hurts no one but yourself. You wouldn't see a debate between two politicians who didn't research the other side. If they didn't, how would they know what the other persons talking points are, and how to formulate a good response?
/. you can list specific details that you disagree with instead of disagreeing on simple politics.
Which argument would carry more weight in a discussion with your peers: "I don't like the director so I won't see it; it's a completely false movie" or "I've seen the movie and here is a list of points I disagree agree with and why"? Moore has already stated that he doesn't care if people download his film, as long as it's not being distributed for profit. Why not download it? Next time this argument comes up on
What? When did you ever see the news as unbiased? Anything that passes through mans' mind gets a spin; every last thing. It shouldn't be too much to ask that a reasonable person come to a reasonable decision after hearing ALL sides of an argument.
Have you seen it?
Sure, go ahead. Feel free to correct any grammer or spelling errors. After a few beers I stop proof reading.
It's very understandable that opinions at work should me moderated. A person is being paid to perform a task, and anything but constructive criticism followed by a solution needs to be tempered. School is a different situation all together; we teach kids to respect diversity and the opinions of others, yet live in a society that rewards conformity. Good students are considered to be children that absorb what is taught and believe in the system they are raised in, yet people who ask serious questions and criticize mediocre curriculum are labeled rebel rousers and are demeaned. As I mentioned in a previous post, I was required to read a book called "The McDonaldization of Society" for an analytical writing class, but it is required reading for most sociology classes. It opened my eyes to why the society we live in behaves the way it does. It also speaks closely to our educational system and it's "rewards for conformity" based politics. Here is a link to a good summary of chapters. In fact, part of the argument I use above is a simplification of several pages of the book.
What they did was perfectly legal. My senior year (2000) was in the shadow of Columbine and subject to the knee-jerk reaction that followed. Anything, no matter how remote, could be a weapon. The clippers had a built in nail file. It was categorized like a knife would be. All medicine, OTC or not, had to be accompanied by a doctors note and left in the nurses office. It was classified as an illicit drug. The fact the purse was not mine didn't matter, it was in my possession. I was also not the only one to be suspended for the same or similar circumstances. A few weeks before, an honor student was suspended because she had chronic migraines and as found to have Excedrin in her purse. Needless to say, they were looking for people to make an example of.
Another policy the school district had was called "Quick 50". Anyone could report an anonymous threat through any school staffer (janitor, bus driver, teacher, etc). They, in turn, would report it to the administration with no obligation to reveal their informant. If the tip resulted in the discovery of a weapon or drugs (with a street value over $50), the staff member would get the money who was then obligated to turn it over to the informant anonymously. Whether or not drugs or weapons were found, the subject of the search was required to take a mandatory drug test in the nurse's office. A positive result was not retested for accuracy, and the person was suspended for a week if they promised 30 hours of "voluntary" rehab. Otherwise it was a 4 week suspension. The rehab location sanctioned by the school cost upwards of $50/hour. Needless to say, this program quickly became a way for students to retaliate against their enemys. I was searched based on a "Quick 50' tip, which was fabricated by the administration despite it being unable to verify because of the anonymous nature of the system.
Why is it that religion or patriotism is looked down upon and stopped right away for our own safety but I can't go anywhere on campus without seeing people on hard illegal drugs?
A good patriot never stops asking questions so they can become part of the status quo. Bush tried to redefine "patriotism" as agreeing with our government. Imagine if the founding fathers had that same mentality. Religion is not stopped "right away". Anyone can practice their particular beliefs anytime, anywhere, as long as it doesn't interfere with people who don't care to take part. Imagine how out of place you would feel being part of the religious minority if your public school required you to pray in Arabic 7 times a day. Imagine how much you would have been singled out and picked on for not taking part.
Now I'm not sure how you equate teacher led prayer to sniffing coke in the bathroom, but there are too many differences to examine in detail. In school, you are forced to be present. You are also part of a younger age group that taunts non-conformists. In a bathroom, you can always step out while making some excuse (such as I get tested for work). Besides, what do you care if a bunch of addicts call you names? I also doubt that any of your anecdotes are personal experience since they smack of cliché I hear regularly. When I was in college, it was always the "good Christians" who were dealers, users, or sluts; but that's a debate I don't care to start since it hinges upon the "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality. Obviously you've never spent any time at a Catholic school.
And always, if you don't like what's going on in your schools extracurricular activities, you are free to leave the room and not participate. That is why schools can sanction the Fellowship of Christian Athletes fo after hours events, but must restrict led prayer during regular hours. In one case you can choose not to be present, the other you can not.
Indianapolis, at the edge of the Bible Belt. I had some great teachers too, but most of the other ones were "broken" by the system. It's hard to take lessons from someone who has lost the passion for their job. The excellent teachers were also the ones that were usually in regular trouble with the school district.
When I got to IU, my first class was Analytical Writing (W131), which is a freshman level class that is mandatory for most universities (probably called something different at other schools). I always loved writing, but the hardest thing is teaching someone to think for themselves. Imagine my surprise when I put my best effort into the first paper and got a C. High School did not prepare me the slightest bit in respect to actually analyzing the writings of authors. I never got beyond taking words at their face value.
The first book that I read and analyzed in its entirety was "The McDonaldization of Society" by George Ritzer. It's more of a sociology book, but it has elements that speak indirectly about what's happening to our schools and society, and why. It's definitely a good read if you have the spare time. Here are some links about it. If you read it, please reply back to this thread and let me know if you live in a rubber, velvet, or iron cage. Read the book so you know what I mean.
Religious secularism and prayer in school are total fabrications. Under existing laws, neither teachers nor students canlead a group in prayer. However, any student can freely exercise their freedom of religion in school by finding a quiet place to pray alone. I went to school with several Muslim students who freely permitted to step out of the room in the middle of the lesson so that they may pray as commanded by their religion.
The reason that it is important that nobody lead a group of students in prayer is because it would be a reflection of what happens during the pledge of allegiance. Anyone can look around the room and see who is not participating. We all know kids are great at picking out small differences between their peers, and exploiting them to pick on the person and make them feel bad. Lead prayer in school is just another way for children to pick out the non-conformists. The biggest difference is that, from a young age, children are taught to be particularly fierce about religion. Tolerance is not one of the regular highlights of Sunday School.
Political literature in school is rather dry and taught very matter-of-factly. It usually steers clear of any heated controversy and also fails to point out that there are serious flaws with America's political system. Considering that it hasn't been revised since the original authoring, this isn't a big surprise; but public schools teach children to remember, not to think. When I was in school, during a U.S. History class, I asked my teacher why election law hasn't evolved in the last 200+ years. I continued by indicating that in a consumer based economy that people are not satisfied with only two choices, but the two choice mentality permeates our political system. He responded by reminding us that there were more than two parties. When I elaborated that the electoral system can mathematically support only a two party majority, he quickly deflected my questions by reminding us that there are countries where people don't get to vote at all. It was a true statement, but not an answer to why our system works the way it does.
That day I went home and wrote a short essay on our political parties, their differences, and their common ground. For the common ground section I explained that our electoral system will never change because both parties agree that they want it to stay a two party system. They've been playing this game for over 150 years, and they know it well. They fear having to contend with a third, or even fourth, candidate who stands a fair chance. Even though runoff, direct elections are more representative of a multicultural system like ours, both parties have no interest in sharing their power.
I went to the copy store and ran off about 1000 copies to distribute to the upperclassmen and stuck them to cars, lockers, and handed them out in the halls. Later that day I was pulled out of class by a Sheriff and the Dean of students. I was searched, and so was my locker and car. They said they had gotten a tip about me bringing a gun to school. While my locker was being emptied in to the all, I asked the Dean what he thought about my essay. He said that productive members of society need to feel safe and secure about their [perceived] power in America's political system, and that people "like me" raise dissent and cause people to lose their faith in our system. Right about this time they pull out my girlfriend's purse, which I picked up after she forgot it at the lunch table. Inside they found a bottle of Midol and some nail clippers. I received a one week suspension for each. As a result, I could not make up the work or tests that I missed. Four weeks later I graduated 8th in my class with 4 missing tests and 13 missing assignments.
Safe and secure in our rational system.
Actually I'm against extradition from any country for any non-felonious crimes. The fact that copyright infringement is a felony only serves to demonstrate how law in America is fast becoming a whore to corporations. I'm all for artists controlling their creations, but for a limited time. Besides, most times it's not even the artists doing this. It's large corporations that hold the rights. It's the business of art. That just sounds wrong, like the business of faith.
In this case, the victim, can only say "I may have lost revenue when he distributed copyrighted works." That is, of course, assuming that these people would have bought it had they not been able to download it. The admin at MIT can say "He rooted my boxes. I had to stay up over night, patch, and reset them." How many hundreds of thousands has the DoJ spent on him so far, and how much more are they willing to pay? Do you feel safer in your daily life now that he's probably going to jail? Is Australia's justice system so inept that he could not have been prosecuted under their laws? This is another case of America throwing its weight around just because it can. After the last 4 years we should be trying to regain our friends, so we don't have to wait for another national tragedy for the world to stand behind us.
The reason I'm upset about it is that you will never see America extradite one of its citizens for copyright infringement. We will make him stand trial here. A few years back a diplomat for Georgia (the country) was driving drunk and hit a child in D.C. The government got his country to drop his diplomatic status so he could stand trial here. A few years later, an American diplomat was driving drunk in Western Europe and hit a child. The U.S. refused to drop his immunity, and recalled him. He has never stood trial for his crime. I see the copyright situation as the continuation of our hard headed, one sided, political ideal logy.
They sue the university since they are the ISP. Some schools will turn over names to deflect the lawsuits, others don't. And if p2p traffic can bog down your schools internal network, they probably haven't upgraded it since the 80s. That's just a symptom of a future problem.