No. We should instead find someone who is not only intelligent but also honest to listen to.
The AEI who funds Green would love nothing more than to keep the world running on coal and oil until Armageddon. The pseudo-intellectuals they hire are no authority on science, technology, economics, politics, or even religion.
And you can prove this how? The banner you and your friends are waving is called "security through obscurity". It has never and will never work.
Stupid statements like "we've been fine for nine years!" ignore the fact that Microsoft's security failure did not take nine years of work to discover and exploit. There is no guarantee that it won't be discovered several times following disclosure yet prior to patching by persons with malicious intent.
If the only people who looked for exploits were benevolent, I'd be so casual about them too.
Very quick Google search leads me to figure this: currently often posted in various places (YouTube is popular) by trolls who object to Obama. It actually predates the president, appearing at least as early as mid-2006, but Google thinks even back in 2001.
And comparing the "response times" is only possible if you think that the two responses - releasing a hotfix that removes functionality and releasing an update that fixes the problem - are identical.
I think the only thing that matters is that my nana's computer doesn't start sending her bank information to some asshat on the other side of the world. Even if she did use the help system and needed to call me twice as much to figure out how to do something, that's worth the extra security. So when looked at from that point of view, they are indeed identical.
I do not think that word means what you think it means. He didn't threaten them to achieve gain, his endgame action was of showing his hand , so he's actually gotten rid of his leverage. How exactly do you figure that was an act of blackmail?
When and if my customers' PCs get owned by this, I will blame the exploit discoverer.
This is where your bias and lack of reasoning becomes obvious. The responsibility is always on the one who develops the exploit, or the ones who take advantage of the exploit. Now that you know what to do, if you feel responsible for your customers help them secure their systems, don't sit on your ass blaming other people for your inaction. Everyone here is very sorry you can't be lazy and just wait for Tuesday to "secure" your systems for you.
Researchers are not responsible for the action or lack of action of others and misuse of their research. As is often the case, this researcher's actions were intended for the benefit of the public by bringing to light a vulnerability. Microsoft may not like the fact that their product has been found to once again be insecure, but that's their fault. You Google-haters make it sound like he developed and sold a rootkit. That wasn't Google, that was Sony.
If he'd shut his mouth for a reasonable period of time we'd all be better off.
The problem exactly is the question of what is "reasonable." He thought 60 days was plenty, Microsoft was wishy-washy and noncommittal on even that lengthy timescale. You bring to mind that old saying: "The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to remain silent." I'm not sure letting Microsoft get away with negligence is appropriate, just as we're not allowing BP to do the same.
If we want kids to be safe drivers, we'd have to teach them that fun is bad.
Careful there. Fun really isn't necessarily bad, though they do correlate at times*. Fun just isn't always the ideal goal when making one's decisions and kids simply have a harder time overcoming the desire for fun.
* moreso the more conservative one's authority figures. This also suggests that they're both subjective and don't necessarily work on the same value scale either. E.g. While others do, I don't find knitting fun, but nobody would call it a bad thing.
Anything that will get people out of their basements and socialize with other people in person can't be all bad.
I like your optimism. That works in certain cases, especially when stock and place in line aren't big issues, or when the store handles queuing properly.
Last time I did the Black Friday thing it was 2005 when I was one of maybe twenty-five people waiting outside a Staples in the bitter Massachusetts pre-dawn cold. The limited number of "adversaries" and shared misery created an environment of friendliness and chattiness. I don't go anymore not only are deals are getting less worthwhile, but mostly because people seem to be getting more greedy/desperate and anti-social. I no longer get the feeling I'm the "fellow fan" you mentioned, but rather "the competition" or even enemy. Good luck getting into a friendly conversation in those larger rowdier crowds. Humans are indeed funny.
Good points. I meant average investors on the latter segment. By "average" I mean people who have a job which actually contributes to society and are simply trying to invest their retirements by picking (theoretically) smart long-term stocks because, again, they have a real job.
An interesting idea to be sure, and certainly worth bringing up during discussions about computer-initiated trades.
Still, I'd think it depends on how much money they're gambling with, as compared to the total amount of outstanding stock. In the long run, stock value isn't going to be based on (or even significantly influenced by) what day traders do, but on real numbers. Otherwise, aren't investors being stupidly irrational?
We still have that kind of government: it provides a LOT of money, across many many fields. I feel the problem is we have too many politicians who don't understand science and the importance of political neutrality. Some seek to ban various kinds outright (see Stem Cell research and Climatology). Others just have an economic bias and don't want the government involved in anything other than national defense (which itself benefits from massive government science sponsorship). I feel both type do a disservice, the former for trampling on the rights of others, and the latter for the exact short-term thinking you mention.
As for private business R&D, yes far too many are shortsighted and live quarter to quarter. That said generally speaking those companies who actually do invest in their future don't often fail, are fiscally healthy and respected in their fields as centers of innovation (e.g. IBM, GE, Google). Besides, I figure if anyone is responsible for how business acts, it's ultimately the shareholders who tacitly approve of the CEO/BoD because they just watch to see if their stock goes up every single quarter. When one's view is limited to P/E, research means nothing.
Terrific points- thanks for enlightening me. My apologies for being imprecise about what I meant when I used the word "access." Let me try to phrase the question in another way, and please answer as many of my hypothetical as (and in any way) you like.
Would you suppose there is an issue of interception? (again, apologies if the term is wrong)
The article discusses unencrypted data packets captured and stored by Google. Does it make any difference that those packets were not intended to be received by Google but by another entity (e.g. a wireless router) which is clearly labeled in a TCPIP header. What makes packets I clearly addressed to my access point, ISP and beyond to be fair game? Is this really equivalent to hearing your neighbors, or is the need to use computer equipment sufficient to establish an intrusive intent? Not only this, but Google's computer did not just happen to read those packets by accident, it was a device designed to collect information it was not intended to receive.
I see an important distinction between the addressing information and actual content of packets in question, where addresses are intended to be public, but content is assumed to be private. I wonder: should there be an electronic version of the postal regulation, which would require all networking equipment to ignore any messages for which it not addressed or acting as a routing device? Is there a technical reason why this would prove an obstacle? (I suppose there might be need for an exception inside private networks, where the kind of activity Google performed is often necessary, though perhaps performing sniffing at a router is a sufficient solution given my wording)
I like the postcard idea (though impractical in densely populated areas) and completely agree with discarding the collected data. And the "positive action of transmitting" argument is an interesting one repeated many times in this and other privacy articles, so no modding down is warranted.
I do have questions on how I'm not sure I'd agree with this notion:
Is there any importance to the fact that protecting one's privacy is a far more technically complex (and modern) problem than locking one's door? And is uninvited WiFi access not like viewing something in public, but rather similar to entering another's home uninvited?
Setting up WPA on a router isn't for people who call themselves "computer illiterate." Even a slightly out-of-date step-by-step instruction sheet is beyond my grandmother's ability to follow, and don't even try suggesting she should maintain the firmware. She has no concept of computer security and certainly no notion of network security, so she wouldn't even know to hire someone to set it up for her. Does not applying patches to your computer make it any less of a crime for someone to break into it? Given this, is it really fair to expect her and many millions of people who don't read Slashdot or xkcd to in order to guarantee a legal right to privacy?
As to the second question, why is accessing an unencrypted network so commonly and cavalierly assumed to be legal? To compare WiFi at home to "intentionally transmitting to strangers" seems not thought-out or even disingenuous. You know there was no intention to share personal information to the world, that's just a silly argument to make. Yes, some open networks like those set in by places like Panera are designed for "public" use, except they're not public. They're for customers, and non-customers sitting outside in their cars are, if not violating the law (or possibly a network TOS), likely morally wrong for taking advantage of another's trust. Intention is big: letting your PDA use some random WiFi to access the Internet, while not ideal, is wholly different from looking for an open network and reading its traffic. IMHO one is questionable, the other indefensible.
This is like asking why stores that only sell Organic food aren't billion dollar companies.
I think that analogy is more fitting to how Apple sells a premium product to Microsoft's Warlmart junk. Open Source doesn't see itself as being an inferior product despite providing a lower price.
Jon was the only one in mind writing that. I was just trying to avoid being blatant about calling conservatives names on Slashdot and getting moded a troll for having an honest point of view.:)
Oh and the "did this at home doesn't count" excuse doesn't fly: when you tell the whole world your actions you're doing it at school too. 20 yrs ago this would have been the equivalent of coming to school and passing out flyers to every student and staff member.
Except that they were not at school when they did. Try perhaps equivalent to posting objectionable material on public billboards in town in a manner which would, given benign material, be considered fine. School property is the limit of a principal's jurisdiction except when children are away on school activities and in that case does not extend to rights over visited property but remains limited to the students and school property (e.g. buses).
The important thing to remember is this suit is not about the contents of material the children posted, but about the school trying to exercise power beyond its mandate. The ACLU is acting within its definition in defending them against a principal overstepping the bounds of his authority. This is to my knowledge the only type of case where they step in, regardless of the politics of the accused, which is why they get so much hate-mail. People fail to ignore their own politics and focus on who is being defended, not why.
If this were a slander suit the ACLU would not be interested unless the first amendment was a central issue and the kids might deserve to lose. It's a tragedy that authoritarians have fanned so much hatred against an organization which more than most any other respects and seeks justice under the constitution. Until they do handle such a case, quit bashing the ACLU for no good reason. It's a very good thing those prejudiced against them are not judge and executioner and hopefully not often jury either.
"he says one thing to one group, another thing to another, but our editors just want to report what he's saying, not that he's lying half the time".
Same thing in America. We have to rely on a comedian to catch our politicians contradicting themselves.
But then we have a overly large portion of the population who ignore the exposed lie precisely because it was reported by a comedian (especially when they can also be labeled a "liberal" or "redneck"), ignorant of the fact that the Fool has often been the only reliable source freely able to deliver the truth. The end result is often that we gain little more than oversimplified humor wrapped in ratings-driven low-brow shtick.
Activation is DRM. DRM breaks copyright. By breaking their end of copyright yet taking advantage of OUR end of the bargain, they are stealing what does not belong to them. They are breaching a social contract.
That's an interesting fresh point of view on the matter, but I must disagree based on what the law actually provides.
Copyright will expire and the public will have access to everything which was protected. The problem is that one's use and/or enjoyment of the copyrighted material is not protected and guaranteed by law, but only the tangible stuff. We'll be able to extract from game files things like text, imagery, audio and video and use them however we like. We can develop unofficial games based on the franchise without fear of being sued and share our copies without being labeled a "pirate." But that's about all we should expect (as to what we should deserve that's debatable but irrelevant to existing games, given current law).
If the developer actually releases the source code, that's fantastic, but not a requirement based on how the current law actually reads. If not, yet we can play the original game that's a bonus, but again not a requirement on the publisher. We gain the right to disassemble binaries but have no claim over anything more than came in the box or posted on the company's website. Source code is not published in the case of proprietary games and thus should not be expected, just as you cannot go to Tolkien's heirs and demand a copy of his unpublished works or notes. Similarly we have no claim over game servers.
Just because you can now legally use, copy and distribute expired works freely under copyright law, that does not require the author or original publisher to provide you with the means to do so. For games that means proprietary audio/video formats are our problem, not the developer's.
Strange. You do notice it's a bad analogy when you equate eastern dictatorships to western nations with codified civil rights and populations aware of their freedoms. Yet you still dismiss the GP's ideal of pacifism regardless of the situation in which it's employed by using examples in which it is not and cannot.
Of course Stalin and today Kim Jong-il could oppress and even starve their respective populations. As you point out, there's nothing to stop them if the people risk life by objecting even in a peaceful manner. Compared with the early Americans' ability to peacefully protest against King George without fear of death. When the king's forces did infringe on that right and killed a handful civilians in Boston, that was enough to cause resentment to fester in the population. That the colonists decided to use force was not a necessary course of action, and as GP suggested perhaps arguably necessary for independence itself. (I mean in the philosophical sense of necessity)
My understanding of pacifists is that they act to influence their own governments to avoid military conflicts whenever possible with some acting personally against government drafting and recruitment efforts. Note the word "act", which while not generally forceful in nature still counts as political action, just as does anything a politician does short of voting to authorize use of their nation's armed forces. As such it is incorrect to label pacifism as passive, words which may sound alike but are not only different in meaning but come from different languages. You'd never hear of Gandhi if all he did was sit alone at home singing kumbaya.
As for "turning out groovy", I'm not sure that the US Bill of Rights would look exactly the way it does had America's founding fathers not engaged in bloody conflict and seen a need to secure the population from a future King George. Would they have included the second amendment as it was written, or at all? My point is that you make it sound like the current situation is ideal, whereas I (and would boldly assume GP agrees) find the second to be well-intentioned yet the repercussions are just one of many tragic consequences of history, which is too often shaped by those quick to use force.
...make them wonder why you're transporting an ostensibly broken laptop...
I think you're giving security personnel a little too much credit. They're not detectives, they just follow procedures often written by some self-proclaimed "security expert" who at best has a decent understanding of physical security and at worst only convincing theater. It wouldn't be at all hard to convince the average customs agent you're just as clueless as them about technology. Just tell them it "broke" on vacation and you need to get it fixed ASAP because you need to turn in some work/school project. Ask if they can recommend a trustworthy local repair shop and you're set. They wouldn't suspect anything unless it becomes common for broken machines to come through and the "security expert" finally figures out it might actually be intentional. Until then they're not going to detain you while they get a geek to fix your laptop, nor are they going to confiscate your specific machine to search for contraband they have absolutely no reason to suspect it contains.
It may just be me but you seem a little too subjective and I suspect you're just telling your side of the story:
"That is a fallacy that they'd love for you to believe." and "...KEPT A COPY OF THE TAPE, SECRETLY, so that it wouldn't be confiscated as "evidence" and mysteriously be deemed inadmissible, or irrelevant, never to be heard of again."
These are both wonderfully obvious indicators of anti-authority views. You lose credibility for being a rational, law-abiding citizen when you insist on claiming to be the only one who is right and the government is completely corrupt and out to get you. We're far from being the type of authoritarian society you're suggesting, and neither you nor your minor traffic violation are worthy of such insidious attention and drama.
Any other person's testimony would be considered hearsay evidence and not proof.
This is evidence that you watch plenty of legal dramas but don't actually pay attention to how the jargon is used. Hearsay is very different from testimony- it's what you say which is not based on your own experience, but that of another. For example, if the officer in question had a partner on vacation that day, and that partner testified based on a conversation he had with the issuing officer, then the partner's testimony would be hearsay and excluded from trial. In the unlikely event that someone else at the scene came forward and supported your innocence, that would be admissible. Funny: repeated claims that the system is broken followed by a demonstrated broken knowledge of the system. Thanks for the chuckle. And no, your word is not worth that of an officer in good standing, sworn to uphold the law, who risks their career by lying just to push you around.
They have cameras in all of their cars now...
Those cameras actually work both ways. The DA is not required to use or even view such footage* unless he/she needs it to prosecute, or to dismiss the case should they suspect that the officer is lying. Second, since you seem to think it would make your case you could have tried to request it be made available. Did you? No? Well maybe next time you should try to defend yourself against what you perceive was an unfair charge. That's your responsibility, not the prosecutor's. And please don't start making accusations that they wouldn't give you access if you didn't even bother to try.
Finally, you're not in the downtrodden position in which you're painting yourself. Bad apples cost municipalities a lot of money and they don't want to be sued by ignoring the kind of problem claimed exists here. Your recourse and perhaps your duty to your fellow citizens is to issue an official complaint against the officer you deem was abusive. No it's not going to get your money back and you'll probably be regarded as just a disgruntled person to whom he issued a citation, but if and when enough of those complaints pile up, his captain will likely start taking them seriously. Man up and testify under penalty of perjury if you really believe your case. Hell, if you sincerely think he's abusive, go ahead and poke around online for other complaints about him or take a look at his record at the courthouse. Contact other people you think he has "harassed" and get a petition to the mayor. Those or quit calling cops crooked - the honorable thing to do is let the officer (and due to the anonymity and blanket statements of widespread corruption, all officers) defend himself against your very serious accusation.
* Taxes spent for the several minutes a DA spends reviewing and prosecuting each minor case would double if they had to watch each driver being pulled over, triple if you expect the judge to waste their time as well. That means doubling the number of people in each job at best (I'd guess a bit more since you'd need either another person and/or upgraded video/computer systems to prepare video for them). Your comments don't strike me as coming from the type eager to pay the extra taxes needed for government employees to watch dashboard video, yet you whine about the government not being big enough to be fair enough to you. Again- funny.
If I were to go find a copy and then find a bug in it, would Google accept my patch or would black helicopters show up above my house?
These aren't the helicopters you're looking for. Google's covert-op choppers are colorful and their secret agents pack paintball guns.
On a serious note: they might take a look and even incorporate it if it passes a Trojan Horse test. If so, they'd likely make sufficient changes on the path to production code where anyone who saw your patch would still not be able to use it to their advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
Funniest part of this post: Get our lawyers on the horn!
So that wasn't an intentional unicorn reference?
No. We should instead find someone who is not only intelligent but also honest to listen to.
The AEI who funds Green would love nothing more than to keep the world running on coal and oil until Armageddon. The pseudo-intellectuals they hire are no authority on science, technology, economics, politics, or even religion.
a threat that previously didn't exist
And you can prove this how? The banner you and your friends are waving is called "security through obscurity". It has never and will never work.
Stupid statements like "we've been fine for nine years!" ignore the fact that Microsoft's security failure did not take nine years of work to discover and exploit. There is no guarantee that it won't be discovered several times following disclosure yet prior to patching by persons with malicious intent.
If the only people who looked for exploits were benevolent, I'd be so casual about them too.
It's called a troll.
Very quick Google search leads me to figure this: currently often posted in various places (YouTube is popular) by trolls who object to Obama. It actually predates the president, appearing at least as early as mid-2006, but Google thinks even back in 2001.
And comparing the "response times" is only possible if you think that the two responses - releasing a hotfix that removes functionality and releasing an update that fixes the problem - are identical.
I think the only thing that matters is that my nana's computer doesn't start sending her bank information to some asshat on the other side of the world. Even if she did use the help system and needed to call me twice as much to figure out how to do something, that's worth the extra security. So when looked at from that point of view, they are indeed identical.
That's blackmail.
I do not think that word means what you think it means. He didn't threaten them to achieve gain, his endgame action was of showing his hand , so he's actually gotten rid of his leverage. How exactly do you figure that was an act of blackmail?
When and if my customers' PCs get owned by this, I will blame the exploit discoverer.
This is where your bias and lack of reasoning becomes obvious. The responsibility is always on the one who develops the exploit, or the ones who take advantage of the exploit. Now that you know what to do, if you feel responsible for your customers help them secure their systems, don't sit on your ass blaming other people for your inaction. Everyone here is very sorry you can't be lazy and just wait for Tuesday to "secure" your systems for you.
Researchers are not responsible for the action or lack of action of others and misuse of their research. As is often the case, this researcher's actions were intended for the benefit of the public by bringing to light a vulnerability. Microsoft may not like the fact that their product has been found to once again be insecure, but that's their fault. You Google-haters make it sound like he developed and sold a rootkit. That wasn't Google, that was Sony.
If he'd shut his mouth for a reasonable period of time we'd all be better off.
The problem exactly is the question of what is "reasonable." He thought 60 days was plenty, Microsoft was wishy-washy and noncommittal on even that lengthy timescale. You bring to mind that old saying: "The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to remain silent." I'm not sure letting Microsoft get away with negligence is appropriate, just as we're not allowing BP to do the same.
If we want kids to be safe drivers, we'd have to teach them that fun is bad.
Careful there. Fun really isn't necessarily bad, though they do correlate at times*. Fun just isn't always the ideal goal when making one's decisions and kids simply have a harder time overcoming the desire for fun.
* moreso the more conservative one's authority figures. This also suggests that they're both subjective and don't necessarily work on the same value scale either. E.g. While others do, I don't find knitting fun, but nobody would call it a bad thing.
Anything that will get people out of their basements and socialize with other people in person can't be all bad.
I like your optimism. That works in certain cases, especially when stock and place in line aren't big issues, or when the store handles queuing properly.
Last time I did the Black Friday thing it was 2005 when I was one of maybe twenty-five people waiting outside a Staples in the bitter Massachusetts pre-dawn cold. The limited number of "adversaries" and shared misery created an environment of friendliness and chattiness. I don't go anymore not only are deals are getting less worthwhile, but mostly because people seem to be getting more greedy/desperate and anti-social. I no longer get the feeling I'm the "fellow fan" you mentioned, but rather "the competition" or even enemy. Good luck getting into a friendly conversation in those larger rowdier crowds. Humans are indeed funny.
Good points. I meant average investors on the latter segment. By "average" I mean people who have a job which actually contributes to society and are simply trying to invest their retirements by picking (theoretically) smart long-term stocks because, again, they have a real job.
Cheers.
An interesting idea to be sure, and certainly worth bringing up during discussions about computer-initiated trades.
Still, I'd think it depends on how much money they're gambling with, as compared to the total amount of outstanding stock. In the long run, stock value isn't going to be based on (or even significantly influenced by) what day traders do, but on real numbers. Otherwise, aren't investors being stupidly irrational?
We still have that kind of government: it provides a LOT of money, across many many fields. I feel the problem is we have too many politicians who don't understand science and the importance of political neutrality. Some seek to ban various kinds outright (see Stem Cell research and Climatology). Others just have an economic bias and don't want the government involved in anything other than national defense (which itself benefits from massive government science sponsorship). I feel both type do a disservice, the former for trampling on the rights of others, and the latter for the exact short-term thinking you mention.
As for private business R&D, yes far too many are shortsighted and live quarter to quarter. That said generally speaking those companies who actually do invest in their future don't often fail, are fiscally healthy and respected in their fields as centers of innovation (e.g. IBM, GE, Google). Besides, I figure if anyone is responsible for how business acts, it's ultimately the shareholders who tacitly approve of the CEO/BoD because they just watch to see if their stock goes up every single quarter. When one's view is limited to P/E, research means nothing.
Terrific points- thanks for enlightening me. My apologies for being imprecise about what I meant when I used the word "access." Let me try to phrase the question in another way, and please answer as many of my hypothetical as (and in any way) you like.
Would you suppose there is an issue of interception? (again, apologies if the term is wrong)
The article discusses unencrypted data packets captured and stored by Google. Does it make any difference that those packets were not intended to be received by Google but by another entity (e.g. a wireless router) which is clearly labeled in a TCPIP header. What makes packets I clearly addressed to my access point, ISP and beyond to be fair game? Is this really equivalent to hearing your neighbors, or is the need to use computer equipment sufficient to establish an intrusive intent? Not only this, but Google's computer did not just happen to read those packets by accident, it was a device designed to collect information it was not intended to receive.
I see an important distinction between the addressing information and actual content of packets in question, where addresses are intended to be public, but content is assumed to be private. I wonder: should there be an electronic version of the postal regulation, which would require all networking equipment to ignore any messages for which it not addressed or acting as a routing device? Is there a technical reason why this would prove an obstacle? (I suppose there might be need for an exception inside private networks, where the kind of activity Google performed is often necessary, though perhaps performing sniffing at a router is a sufficient solution given my wording)
Cheers.
I like the postcard idea (though impractical in densely populated areas) and completely agree with discarding the collected data. And the "positive action of transmitting" argument is an interesting one repeated many times in this and other privacy articles, so no modding down is warranted.
I do have questions on how I'm not sure I'd agree with this notion:
Is there any importance to the fact that protecting one's privacy is a far more technically complex (and modern) problem than locking one's door? And is uninvited WiFi access not like viewing something in public, but rather similar to entering another's home uninvited?
Setting up WPA on a router isn't for people who call themselves "computer illiterate." Even a slightly out-of-date step-by-step instruction sheet is beyond my grandmother's ability to follow, and don't even try suggesting she should maintain the firmware. She has no concept of computer security and certainly no notion of network security, so she wouldn't even know to hire someone to set it up for her. Does not applying patches to your computer make it any less of a crime for someone to break into it? Given this, is it really fair to expect her and many millions of people who don't read Slashdot or xkcd to in order to guarantee a legal right to privacy?
As to the second question, why is accessing an unencrypted network so commonly and cavalierly assumed to be legal? To compare WiFi at home to "intentionally transmitting to strangers" seems not thought-out or even disingenuous. You know there was no intention to share personal information to the world, that's just a silly argument to make. Yes, some open networks like those set in by places like Panera are designed for "public" use, except they're not public. They're for customers, and non-customers sitting outside in their cars are, if not violating the law (or possibly a network TOS), likely morally wrong for taking advantage of another's trust. Intention is big: letting your PDA use some random WiFi to access the Internet, while not ideal, is wholly different from looking for an open network and reading its traffic. IMHO one is questionable, the other indefensible.
Wish I had mod points today. This is the most insightful thing I've seen here in weeks. Thank you!
This is like asking why stores that only sell Organic food aren't billion dollar companies.
I think that analogy is more fitting to how Apple sells a premium product to Microsoft's Warlmart junk. Open Source doesn't see itself as being an inferior product despite providing a lower price.
It will also make your penis grow in size, will make your erection last longer, and your orgasms more intense.
I read that the only side effect was a change in sexual orientation.
And we thought the combination of a lunatic and nuclear weapons was a scary idea.
Jon was the only one in mind writing that. I was just trying to avoid being blatant about calling conservatives names on Slashdot and getting moded a troll for having an honest point of view. :)
Oh and the "did this at home doesn't count" excuse doesn't fly: when you tell the whole world your actions you're doing it at school too. 20 yrs ago this would have been the equivalent of coming to school and passing out flyers to every student and staff member.
Except that they were not at school when they did. Try perhaps equivalent to posting objectionable material on public billboards in town in a manner which would, given benign material, be considered fine. School property is the limit of a principal's jurisdiction except when children are away on school activities and in that case does not extend to rights over visited property but remains limited to the students and school property (e.g. buses).
The important thing to remember is this suit is not about the contents of material the children posted, but about the school trying to exercise power beyond its mandate. The ACLU is acting within its definition in defending them against a principal overstepping the bounds of his authority. This is to my knowledge the only type of case where they step in, regardless of the politics of the accused, which is why they get so much hate-mail. People fail to ignore their own politics and focus on who is being defended, not why.
If this were a slander suit the ACLU would not be interested unless the first amendment was a central issue and the kids might deserve to lose. It's a tragedy that authoritarians have fanned so much hatred against an organization which more than most any other respects and seeks justice under the constitution. Until they do handle such a case, quit bashing the ACLU for no good reason. It's a very good thing those prejudiced against them are not judge and executioner and hopefully not often jury either.
"he says one thing to one group, another thing to another, but our editors just want to report what he's saying, not that he's lying half the time".
Same thing in America. We have to rely on a comedian to catch our politicians contradicting themselves.
But then we have a overly large portion of the population who ignore the exposed lie precisely because it was reported by a comedian (especially when they can also be labeled a "liberal" or "redneck"), ignorant of the fact that the Fool has often been the only reliable source freely able to deliver the truth. The end result is often that we gain little more than oversimplified humor wrapped in ratings-driven low-brow shtick.
Activation is DRM. DRM breaks copyright. By breaking their end of copyright yet taking advantage of OUR end of the bargain, they are stealing what does not belong to them. They are breaching a social contract.
That's an interesting fresh point of view on the matter, but I must disagree based on what the law actually provides.
Copyright will expire and the public will have access to everything which was protected. The problem is that one's use and/or enjoyment of the copyrighted material is not protected and guaranteed by law, but only the tangible stuff. We'll be able to extract from game files things like text, imagery, audio and video and use them however we like. We can develop unofficial games based on the franchise without fear of being sued and share our copies without being labeled a "pirate." But that's about all we should expect (as to what we should deserve that's debatable but irrelevant to existing games, given current law).
If the developer actually releases the source code, that's fantastic, but not a requirement based on how the current law actually reads. If not, yet we can play the original game that's a bonus, but again not a requirement on the publisher. We gain the right to disassemble binaries but have no claim over anything more than came in the box or posted on the company's website. Source code is not published in the case of proprietary games and thus should not be expected, just as you cannot go to Tolkien's heirs and demand a copy of his unpublished works or notes. Similarly we have no claim over game servers.
Just because you can now legally use, copy and distribute expired works freely under copyright law, that does not require the author or original publisher to provide you with the means to do so. For games that means proprietary audio/video formats are our problem, not the developer's.
Strange. You do notice it's a bad analogy when you equate eastern dictatorships to western nations with codified civil rights and populations aware of their freedoms. Yet you still dismiss the GP's ideal of pacifism regardless of the situation in which it's employed by using examples in which it is not and cannot.
Of course Stalin and today Kim Jong-il could oppress and even starve their respective populations. As you point out, there's nothing to stop them if the people risk life by objecting even in a peaceful manner. Compared with the early Americans' ability to peacefully protest against King George without fear of death. When the king's forces did infringe on that right and killed a handful civilians in Boston, that was enough to cause resentment to fester in the population. That the colonists decided to use force was not a necessary course of action, and as GP suggested perhaps arguably necessary for independence itself. (I mean in the philosophical sense of necessity)
My understanding of pacifists is that they act to influence their own governments to avoid military conflicts whenever possible with some acting personally against government drafting and recruitment efforts. Note the word "act", which while not generally forceful in nature still counts as political action, just as does anything a politician does short of voting to authorize use of their nation's armed forces. As such it is incorrect to label pacifism as passive, words which may sound alike but are not only different in meaning but come from different languages. You'd never hear of Gandhi if all he did was sit alone at home singing kumbaya.
As for "turning out groovy", I'm not sure that the US Bill of Rights would look exactly the way it does had America's founding fathers not engaged in bloody conflict and seen a need to secure the population from a future King George. Would they have included the second amendment as it was written, or at all? My point is that you make it sound like the current situation is ideal, whereas I (and would boldly assume GP agrees) find the second to be well-intentioned yet the repercussions are just one of many tragic consequences of history, which is too often shaped by those quick to use force.
...make them wonder why you're transporting an ostensibly broken laptop...
I think you're giving security personnel a little too much credit. They're not detectives, they just follow procedures often written by some self-proclaimed "security expert" who at best has a decent understanding of physical security and at worst only convincing theater.
It wouldn't be at all hard to convince the average customs agent you're just as clueless as them about technology. Just tell them it "broke" on vacation and you need to get it fixed ASAP because you need to turn in some work/school project. Ask if they can recommend a trustworthy local repair shop and you're set. They wouldn't suspect anything unless it becomes common for broken machines to come through and the "security expert" finally figures out it might actually be intentional. Until then they're not going to detain you while they get a geek to fix your laptop, nor are they going to confiscate your specific machine to search for contraband they have absolutely no reason to suspect it contains.
Really? I can get my pr0n on Facebook?
It may just be me but you seem a little too subjective and I suspect you're just telling your side of the story:
"That is a fallacy that they'd love for you to believe." and "...KEPT A COPY OF THE TAPE, SECRETLY, so that it wouldn't be confiscated as "evidence" and mysteriously be deemed inadmissible, or irrelevant, never to be heard of again."
These are both wonderfully obvious indicators of anti-authority views. You lose credibility for being a rational, law-abiding citizen when you insist on claiming to be the only one who is right and the government is completely corrupt and out to get you. We're far from being the type of authoritarian society you're suggesting, and neither you nor your minor traffic violation are worthy of such insidious attention and drama.
Any other person's testimony would be considered hearsay evidence and not proof.
This is evidence that you watch plenty of legal dramas but don't actually pay attention to how the jargon is used. Hearsay is very different from testimony- it's what you say which is not based on your own experience, but that of another. For example, if the officer in question had a partner on vacation that day, and that partner testified based on a conversation he had with the issuing officer, then the partner's testimony would be hearsay and excluded from trial. In the unlikely event that someone else at the scene came forward and supported your innocence, that would be admissible. Funny: repeated claims that the system is broken followed by a demonstrated broken knowledge of the system. Thanks for the chuckle. And no, your word is not worth that of an officer in good standing, sworn to uphold the law, who risks their career by lying just to push you around.
They have cameras in all of their cars now...
Those cameras actually work both ways. The DA is not required to use or even view such footage* unless he/she needs it to prosecute, or to dismiss the case should they suspect that the officer is lying. Second, since you seem to think it would make your case you could have tried to request it be made available. Did you? No? Well maybe next time you should try to defend yourself against what you perceive was an unfair charge. That's your responsibility, not the prosecutor's. And please don't start making accusations that they wouldn't give you access if you didn't even bother to try.
Finally, you're not in the downtrodden position in which you're painting yourself. Bad apples cost municipalities a lot of money and they don't want to be sued by ignoring the kind of problem claimed exists here. Your recourse and perhaps your duty to your fellow citizens is to issue an official complaint against the officer you deem was abusive. No it's not going to get your money back and you'll probably be regarded as just a disgruntled person to whom he issued a citation, but if and when enough of those complaints pile up, his captain will likely start taking them seriously. Man up and testify under penalty of perjury if you really believe your case. Hell, if you sincerely think he's abusive, go ahead and poke around online for other complaints about him or take a look at his record at the courthouse. Contact other people you think he has "harassed" and get a petition to the mayor. Those or quit calling cops crooked - the honorable thing to do is let the officer (and due to the anonymity and blanket statements of widespread corruption, all officers) defend himself against your very serious accusation.
* Taxes spent for the several minutes a DA spends reviewing and prosecuting each minor case would double if they had to watch each driver being pulled over, triple if you expect the judge to waste their time as well. That means doubling the number of people in each job at best (I'd guess a bit more since you'd need either another person and/or upgraded video/computer systems to prepare video for them). Your comments don't strike me as coming from the type eager to pay the extra taxes needed for government employees to watch dashboard video, yet you whine about the government not being big enough to be fair enough to you. Again- funny.
If I were to go find a copy and then find a bug in it, would Google accept my patch or would black helicopters show up above my house?
These aren't the helicopters you're looking for. Google's covert-op choppers are colorful and their secret agents pack paintball guns.
On a serious note: they might take a look and even incorporate it if it passes a Trojan Horse test. If so, they'd likely make sufficient changes on the path to production code where anyone who saw your patch would still not be able to use it to their advantage.