Amen, brother. Wake me up when someone starts putting cameras around peoples' houses. 'Till then, I'll just stay out of any *PUBLIC* place that has cameras that I feel are a threat for some reason.
I'm not nitpicking - I honestly don't understand how you see it as restrictive. Maybe it restricts YOUR plans, but that doesn't make the license itself restrictive, it just makes it inappropriate for you to use it within the framework of your development. Normally, I would dismiss a rebuttal like that (the one I just made) as mere semantics, but I think in this case it makes sense because the license can be restrictive to you but not "be restrictive" in general.
I certainly understand where you're coming from about it not being something you'd want to use in your work and I'm not contesting that. I'm also not one of those people who thinks the GPL is some magical scroll that solves every problem. I just don't understand how that makes it a restrictive license. A license with restrictions? Absolutely. I still wouldn't call it a restrictive license though due to the fact that, when used appropriately, it's something that imposes FAR fewer restrictions on the target audience than most other licenses.
Perhaps you need to read what I wrote more carefully.
Eh - it would appear the battle branched off in more places, but I did since find your other posts.
Here's where I'm picking up the suggestion about inferiority:
I'm not saying sharing stuff is bad, I just want it to be fair.
Are you telling me that saying the GPL doesn't work as a fair deal isn't suggesting inferiority? I'd say that if a license agreement doesn't provide a "fair deal" for the developer/end user then it is indeed inferior. Would you disagree?
...being worth more than the small amount of code I borrowed.
Here's the crux of the problem, though it's already been addressed elsewhere by both you and another poster ([OTHER POSTER] if you're only using that little bit write your own [YOU] I do.)
I just don't see how you feel it's restrictive unless you mean "restrictive in the same sense almost all other licenses are". It's not more restrictive than having to purchase a proprietary library. If you use one specialised function from a performance library of 150 functions, you still have to buy the whole library - your whole code becomes obligated to those terms. Ditto for the GPL - if you use one GPL'ed function, your whole code becomes obligated to the GPL. It's not especially restrictive, and since you can use it however you want as long as you don't redistribute, I'd say it's LESS restrictive than most prop library agreements where you have to pay whether you distribute or not.
Again - different tools for different jobs. It's not more restrictive and I'll aruge that it's LESS restricitve - but it's DEFINITELY restrictive in a different way where it is restrictive. I would certainly take STRONG exception with the post way at the top of this thread that you appeared to initially be backing up where the poster said that it was "one of the most" restrictive licenses.
Uh... care to explain how? Assuming this guy's not just talking out his ass to hype up CIA wins in the past: The U.S. initially simply turned down the purchase order for the technology when the Soviets approached them, but a KGB man told them that an agent was being sent in to steal it. The U.S. booby trapped the stolen technology which forced the Soviets to reevalutate the viability of ALL the technology they'd STOLEN over the years. So, it's facist to booby trap technology that your enemy is stealing from you for their own gain? Yea... that makes sense. Add in the fact that a blew up a pipeline in the middle of nowhere so nobody even got hurt...
Of course, if you'd read the article, you'd already know all this.
Ditto here. I actually tried registering a while back and it gave me crap about not having the "right" browser. Oh well - boo hoo. Guess we'll continue to read the articles without registering since they obviously prefer we don't sign up.
You know, you're getting all pissy at these people, but let's face it - you're really just whining that someone who took the time to write something isn't letting you do whatever you want with it, and that's why you got the responses you did.
It really is as simple as "the author of the code can tell you how you can and can't use it so fooey on you if you don't like it". The GPL is NOT restrictive. You can use it for anything you damn well please as long as you don't redistribute it. But, if you're going to give away or sell YOUR code, you're also going to be giving away or selling SOMEONE ELSE'S code. How is saying "if you redistribute MY code, you have to share the whole system" any different than saying "if you give away MY code you have to pay me for it"? They're both just terms of use, and if it doesn't fit the situation, you don't use it. Use a hammer to pound nails and a screwdriver to turn screws, it's just a matter of picking the right tools for the job. But don't sit there and claim that because the GPL has restrictions on DISTRIBUTION while most proprietary systems have restrictions on USE AND DISTRIBUTION that the GPL is somehow MORE restrictive. If you don't like the terms of the GPL, fine - say so. But don't sit there claiming that it's somehow inferior because it places restricions on how other people's code can be used. That's the whole purpose of licensing, and the GPL is just different, not necessarily worse or better in any universal way.
Re:You give SCO too much credit....
on
SCO Offline
·
· Score: 1
Would that be the paranoid atmostphere in which millions of morons happily clicked open unknown, executable attachments leaving us with the current situation?
You don't just rollback. This isn't just some database with an ACID problem (oh.. wait). It needs to be undone, dismantled, and scrapped. Frankly, the entire social security number prank is out of control and needs to be trashed as well. People are so used to the damn thing that anyone and everyone can just fish someone's "number" out of the garbage and become them over night. It always amazed me that the most "protection" you have on sensitive accounts with businesses is "the last 4 digits of your social security number". Uh, right. Thanks. The mere fact that you collect that information compromises it, but okay.
And no, my elected officials AREN'T listening. Try to e-mail the white house once. First thing the fucks ask you is whether you agree or disagree with the policy you're writing on. Now, the only possible reason is for routing. If someone were actually reading the e-mails and attempting to digest them on some level, there wouldn't even be a reason for the question. So, why, exactly, would yay/nay opinions go to different people, I wonder?
Senators? AH HAHAHAHA! That's the funniest joke I've ever heard. Specter or Santorum listening to ME? HA! E-mails go ignored or receive an auto-response (can't remember who sends the auto-response) that effectively says "If you contribute call this number, otherwise, piss the fuck off".
Calls? Ignored. Letters? The only thing I ever got back was bullshit campaign literature. Yep, they don't see fit to respond to me, but they do see fit to start junk mailing me bullshit.
Fuck the elected officials. They don't give a shit about anything but their bottom lines. That's what happens when you consistently encourage rich business and legal hounds to run by electing them again and again. This system is so fucked up now that I can't imagine it hasn't turned itself totally inside out at this point.
So, I'm sorry, who's listening other than you, and what can you do about it?
That it is two ergs easier to do today and includes all the backwater states that used mimeographs until the 90's is pretty trivial.
YOU kill me. The point is NOT whether it's already available. People are already killing each other, would it be "trivial" if it were ten times easier? The point is that people don't want this. You think the people shouldn't have a say in what happens to their information and you can just dismiss their opinions with some unrelated bullshit like "we already do it, this just makes it easier"?
Boy have I got news for you, bonzo. The attitude that public opinion can just be brushed off with something so hairbrained is sickening. The public opinion is against this and THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH TO STOP IT. If they can present some REEEEAAALLLLL good reasons for this that sways people the other way, fine. However, as long as the people don't want it, it shouldn't happen.
I'm really sick of this roll-over-and-die attitude people have with the government and companies. Take a stand against something you disagree with for once instead of just letting someone fuck you up the ass. The people don't want it, so kill it. Simple as that.
Uh.. did you even read the story, much less the article? They're testing it:
"According to the Deseret Morning News former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt signed Utah's 2.4 million residents up for a pilot program..."
This amazes me:
'...any data gleaned for Utah's participation in MATRIX is information already available to law enforcement.'
Nobody gives a shit, asshole. The point is clear as day and it's dancing right in front of your face: people don't want the information collected into this system, so leave it the fuck alone. Nobody cares whether it's already available, they don't want it available here.
Great... I spoke on behalf of people interested in privacy and called bullshit on the "War on Terror". I'm sure I'm in the fucking thing now.
I don't think it's a matter of them blatantly hiding the laws, it's that they slap tons and tons of tiny laws around big ones, then, as you said, word them as gibberish so nobody can understand them. Net effect? Tons and tons of gibberish laws that can be used to criminalize, on demand, any citizen who the government feels may deserve it (read: anyone who can conveniently be jailed to shut them up or make the government look productive).
You'll have to excuse this post... it's a little close to home and "personal".
If the judge agrees that the facts constitute probable cause to support the warrant, he issues one. If not, he tells me to get lost.
You sir, are an imbecile, but I'd like to thank you for wasting your time explaining to me how all of this is SUPPOSED to work - something I already knew. The entire point of the post was that highly emotional topics such as kiddie porn can easily short circuit these things.
filing false police reports.
And you continue to be an imbecile. I had "false reports" lodged against me at one point that were nowhere near as emotional as the subject at hand. Despite the fact that NO evidence was available to support the ludicrous allegations, and the letter containing them appeared to be written by a former mental patient (oh.. wait.. it WAS written by a former mental patient.. in PENCIL), I still had my personal property taken and searched. After about a month, the detective determined that, in effect, he thought the guy who wrote the letter was a few crayons short of a box. I was given the option to press for an investigation in the other direction, but they told me up front they didn't think they could prove he knowingly filed a false report, and a lawyer concurred after seeing the complaint. ALL BECAUSE OF THE VAGUE WORDING IN THE COMPLAINT. I lost a month of otherwise useful time because completely bogus complaints were filed against me, including some that could have landed me in federal prison for fraud had they been true.
So, before you come around here and shoot your fat mouth off about how things are SUPPOSED to work, bear in mind I just told you how it DID work. Funny how these systems don't always work like they're supposed to, isn't it? Or, can you just not comprehend the possibility that maybe, just maybe, things don't really work the way everyone feels comfortable thinking they do?
A lot of school bookstores refuse to release info on books until the last minute to prevent this sort of thing and ensure that the only way to get the books on time is through the Uni.
I almost got banned from the bookstore for vehemently arguing with a director about this practice once.
(Note for stevezero: Since you didn't take a pro/con position, I'm not really directing this rant at you or your opinion - just ranting on your implication of copyright in general)
Laws, copyright or otherwise, only go as far as people are willing to let them. If the shit stinks, it stinks. If it's still legal, then it's legally stinky shit, but it's still shit.
I see no problems with circumventing stinky shit, no matter why it stinks. The textbook scam is well known. It's a huge conjob perpetuated by everyone from the tops of the publishing houses down to individuals at institutions. If it weren't that this were a con of the grandest scale, and that the students have no choice or say in the matter, I would say "just don't buy them" such as is the case with crummy, overpriced music. However, when left with no alternatives, I see nothing wrong with fighting fire with fire. If they don't want the stuff ripped off, they shouldn't be trying to rip off the people who have to buy it.
Or, to put it another way: Boo, fucking, hoo. Addison Weselly et. al. can get down on their knees and take my dick in their mouths for all I care. I hope the companies go under for this shit and the employees turn on management with full bore lawsuits. I'm sick of big corps. taking advantage of everyone else like this, and I'm not going to be some sappy apologist saying "don't stoop to their level" in a lame attempt to excuse spinelessness.
screw up some people's lives by taking nude pictures of themselves with a webcam in the privacy of their own bedroom, and then emailing said pictures to people they don't like and reporting the recipients to the police. Pretty f'ing scary scenerio if you ask me.
You don't need to go that far. Baseless allegations, if properly worded, can cause a serious detriment to a person's life and leave the accusing party completely off the hook. All you have to do is send a nice letter to the FBI saying such and such person MAY have been viewing and/or sharing child pornography or they said something that LEADS YOU TO BELIEVE that they MAY be involved with it in some way.
No evidence necessary, and 9 times out of 10 a search warrant will be issued due entirely to the nature of the allegations, no matter how baseless they are. Then, the cops'll come down on you even harder for your "suspicious" activity of demanding they show some justification for searching / siezing property.
Got an axe to grind? I'm almost willing to guarantee that scenario would work well for you. If you're REALLY careful, a few covert "leaks" about the bogus investigation to friends, family, and co-workers could leave a totally innocent person premanently labeled without a shred of evidence.
Welcome to the American Justice system, where hearsay and public opinion court more power than most people would ever dare dream. We hope you have a nice stay.
And there's a hell lot more to the internet than Win32.
True, but as a Slashdotter, I thought you knew that the WWW is not the Internet;). The WWW is overrun by IE-using morons and people who are forced to use it by other IE-using morons. Such as I (I'm a victim.. not one of the morons). I am typing this at work on IE because my IT department [which mostly uses Opera] says that I have to use IE and my boss made us develop our Intranet as an IE-only system. I've fought, scratched, and clawed to no avail. It's the clueless leading the blind, I suppose.
Ditto on my Red Hat 8.0 desktop with Fb 0.7. I experienced the problem back when I used a Windows desktop with an older version of Fb, but I don't know what version exactly and can't test now because the Winbox isn't on the network anymore. It really hurts when I'm trying to Preview and I have to keep reloading until Slashdot sends back some half decent code.
Yea, we wouldn't want the unwashed masses to know things, would we? That would be horrible, what with people trying to better their understanding of things. My god! Think of the implications! By writing these books, we might even inspire a whole new generation of people interested in physics who might *gasp* GO TO SCHOOL TO STUDY PHYSICS! We must find all of these "armchair physics" books and burn them!
I don't know why I bothered to write this post... maybe someone might let me know what the attraction is of trying to explain something as obvious as self-education to a physics idiot-savant.
In some incidences it truly is cheaper to run Windows vs *nix.
Yea... Windows is like the bubble boy of the computer world - the second it comes in contact with anything outside of a highly protected, closely monitored, totally sterilized area the shit hits the fan.. but as long as it stays in its bubble and no disks, network connections, or phone lines ever touch it... hey - TCO is great.
...shut you out of a lot of opportunities in the future.
You ain't kiddin'! Hell, my company is, at this very minute, looking for some MCSE-holding kissass morons to tell the upper management folks that we need to upgrade to Windows 2003 and XP. I never really understood why we need to hire kissass morons to come to the conclusion the management has already come to.. but I guess that's just because I don't understand the intracacies of management and Windows system admin...
Slashdot Mirror
Amen, brother. Wake me up when someone starts putting cameras around peoples' houses. 'Till then, I'll just stay out of any *PUBLIC* place that has cameras that I feel are a threat for some reason.
Real tough conclusion.
How do you think true leaders get motivated to action in the first place, hmmm?
I'm not nitpicking - I honestly don't understand how you see it as restrictive. Maybe it restricts YOUR plans, but that doesn't make the license itself restrictive, it just makes it inappropriate for you to use it within the framework of your development. Normally, I would dismiss a rebuttal like that (the one I just made) as mere semantics, but I think in this case it makes sense because the license can be restrictive to you but not "be restrictive" in general.
I certainly understand where you're coming from about it not being something you'd want to use in your work and I'm not contesting that. I'm also not one of those people who thinks the GPL is some magical scroll that solves every problem. I just don't understand how that makes it a restrictive license. A license with restrictions? Absolutely. I still wouldn't call it a restrictive license though due to the fact that, when used appropriately, it's something that imposes FAR fewer restrictions on the target audience than most other licenses.
Perhaps you need to read what I wrote more carefully.
Eh - it would appear the battle branched off in more places, but I did since find your other posts.
Here's where I'm picking up the suggestion about inferiority:
I'm not saying sharing stuff is bad, I just want it to be fair.
Are you telling me that saying the GPL doesn't work as a fair deal isn't suggesting inferiority? I'd say that if a license agreement doesn't provide a "fair deal" for the developer/end user then it is indeed inferior. Would you disagree?
Here's the crux of the problem, though it's already been addressed elsewhere by both you and another poster ([OTHER POSTER] if you're only using that little bit write your own [YOU] I do.)
I just don't see how you feel it's restrictive unless you mean "restrictive in the same sense almost all other licenses are". It's not more restrictive than having to purchase a proprietary library. If you use one specialised function from a performance library of 150 functions, you still have to buy the whole library - your whole code becomes obligated to those terms. Ditto for the GPL - if you use one GPL'ed function, your whole code becomes obligated to the GPL. It's not especially restrictive, and since you can use it however you want as long as you don't redistribute, I'd say it's LESS restrictive than most prop library agreements where you have to pay whether you distribute or not.
Again - different tools for different jobs. It's not more restrictive and I'll aruge that it's LESS restricitve - but it's DEFINITELY restrictive in a different way where it is restrictive. I would certainly take STRONG exception with the post way at the top of this thread that you appeared to initially be backing up where the poster said that it was "one of the most" restrictive licenses.
Uh... care to explain how? Assuming this guy's not just talking out his ass to hype up CIA wins in the past: The U.S. initially simply turned down the purchase order for the technology when the Soviets approached them, but a KGB man told them that an agent was being sent in to steal it. The U.S. booby trapped the stolen technology which forced the Soviets to reevalutate the viability of ALL the technology they'd STOLEN over the years. So, it's facist to booby trap technology that your enemy is stealing from you for their own gain? Yea... that makes sense. Add in the fact that a blew up a pipeline in the middle of nowhere so nobody even got hurt...
Of course, if you'd read the article, you'd already know all this.
Because it's in the NYT, of course!
Ditto here. I actually tried registering a while back and it gave me crap about not having the "right" browser. Oh well - boo hoo. Guess we'll continue to read the articles without registering since they obviously prefer we don't sign up.
You know, you're getting all pissy at these people, but let's face it - you're really just whining that someone who took the time to write something isn't letting you do whatever you want with it, and that's why you got the responses you did.
It really is as simple as "the author of the code can tell you how you can and can't use it so fooey on you if you don't like it". The GPL is NOT restrictive. You can use it for anything you damn well please as long as you don't redistribute it. But, if you're going to give away or sell YOUR code, you're also going to be giving away or selling SOMEONE ELSE'S code. How is saying "if you redistribute MY code, you have to share the whole system" any different than saying "if you give away MY code you have to pay me for it"? They're both just terms of use, and if it doesn't fit the situation, you don't use it. Use a hammer to pound nails and a screwdriver to turn screws, it's just a matter of picking the right tools for the job. But don't sit there and claim that because the GPL has restrictions on DISTRIBUTION while most proprietary systems have restrictions on USE AND DISTRIBUTION that the GPL is somehow MORE restrictive. If you don't like the terms of the GPL, fine - say so. But don't sit there claiming that it's somehow inferior because it places restricions on how other people's code can be used. That's the whole purpose of licensing, and the GPL is just different, not necessarily worse or better in any universal way.
Would that be the paranoid atmostphere in which millions of morons happily clicked open unknown, executable attachments leaving us with the current situation?
You don't just rollback. This isn't just some database with an ACID problem (oh.. wait). It needs to be undone, dismantled, and scrapped. Frankly, the entire social security number prank is out of control and needs to be trashed as well. People are so used to the damn thing that anyone and everyone can just fish someone's "number" out of the garbage and become them over night. It always amazed me that the most "protection" you have on sensitive accounts with businesses is "the last 4 digits of your social security number". Uh, right. Thanks. The mere fact that you collect that information compromises it, but okay.
And no, my elected officials AREN'T listening. Try to e-mail the white house once. First thing the fucks ask you is whether you agree or disagree with the policy you're writing on. Now, the only possible reason is for routing. If someone were actually reading the e-mails and attempting to digest them on some level, there wouldn't even be a reason for the question. So, why, exactly, would yay/nay opinions go to different people, I wonder?
Senators? AH HAHAHAHA! That's the funniest joke I've ever heard. Specter or Santorum listening to ME? HA! E-mails go ignored or receive an auto-response (can't remember who sends the auto-response) that effectively says "If you contribute call this number, otherwise, piss the fuck off".
Calls? Ignored. Letters? The only thing I ever got back was bullshit campaign literature. Yep, they don't see fit to respond to me, but they do see fit to start junk mailing me bullshit.
Fuck the elected officials. They don't give a shit about anything but their bottom lines. That's what happens when you consistently encourage rich business and legal hounds to run by electing them again and again. This system is so fucked up now that I can't imagine it hasn't turned itself totally inside out at this point.
So, I'm sorry, who's listening other than you, and what can you do about it?
7. Pennsylvania.
Fuck.
That it is two ergs easier to do today and includes all the backwater states that used mimeographs until the 90's is pretty trivial.
YOU kill me. The point is NOT whether it's already available. People are already killing each other, would it be "trivial" if it were ten times easier? The point is that people don't want this. You think the people shouldn't have a say in what happens to their information and you can just dismiss their opinions with some unrelated bullshit like "we already do it, this just makes it easier"?
Boy have I got news for you, bonzo. The attitude that public opinion can just be brushed off with something so hairbrained is sickening. The public opinion is against this and THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH TO STOP IT. If they can present some REEEEAAALLLLL good reasons for this that sways people the other way, fine. However, as long as the people don't want it, it shouldn't happen.
I'm really sick of this roll-over-and-die attitude people have with the government and companies. Take a stand against something you disagree with for once instead of just letting someone fuck you up the ass. The people don't want it, so kill it. Simple as that.
Uh.. did you even read the story, much less the article? They're testing it:
"According to the Deseret Morning News former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt signed Utah's 2.4 million residents up for a pilot program..."
This amazes me:
'...any data gleaned for Utah's participation in MATRIX is information already available to law enforcement.'
Nobody gives a shit, asshole. The point is clear as day and it's dancing right in front of your face: people don't want the information collected into this system, so leave it the fuck alone. Nobody cares whether it's already available, they don't want it available here.
Great... I spoke on behalf of people interested in privacy and called bullshit on the "War on Terror". I'm sure I'm in the fucking thing now.
I don't think it's a matter of them blatantly hiding the laws, it's that they slap tons and tons of tiny laws around big ones, then, as you said, word them as gibberish so nobody can understand them. Net effect? Tons and tons of gibberish laws that can be used to criminalize, on demand, any citizen who the government feels may deserve it (read: anyone who can conveniently be jailed to shut them up or make the government look productive).
Can anybody say "three strike laws"?
You'll have to excuse this post... it's a little close to home and "personal".
If the judge agrees that the facts constitute probable cause to support the warrant, he issues one. If not, he tells me to get lost.
You sir, are an imbecile, but I'd like to thank you for wasting your time explaining to me how all of this is SUPPOSED to work - something I already knew. The entire point of the post was that highly emotional topics such as kiddie porn can easily short circuit these things.
filing false police reports.
And you continue to be an imbecile. I had "false reports" lodged against me at one point that were nowhere near as emotional as the subject at hand. Despite the fact that NO evidence was available to support the ludicrous allegations, and the letter containing them appeared to be written by a former mental patient (oh.. wait.. it WAS written by a former mental patient.. in PENCIL), I still had my personal property taken and searched. After about a month, the detective determined that, in effect, he thought the guy who wrote the letter was a few crayons short of a box. I was given the option to press for an investigation in the other direction, but they told me up front they didn't think they could prove he knowingly filed a false report, and a lawyer concurred after seeing the complaint. ALL BECAUSE OF THE VAGUE WORDING IN THE COMPLAINT. I lost a month of otherwise useful time because completely bogus complaints were filed against me, including some that could have landed me in federal prison for fraud had they been true.
So, before you come around here and shoot your fat mouth off about how things are SUPPOSED to work, bear in mind I just told you how it DID work. Funny how these systems don't always work like they're supposed to, isn't it? Or, can you just not comprehend the possibility that maybe, just maybe, things don't really work the way everyone feels comfortable thinking they do?
A lot of school bookstores refuse to release info on books until the last minute to prevent this sort of thing and ensure that the only way to get the books on time is through the Uni.
I almost got banned from the bookstore for vehemently arguing with a director about this practice once.
(Note for stevezero: Since you didn't take a pro/con position, I'm not really directing this rant at you or your opinion - just ranting on your implication of copyright in general)
Laws, copyright or otherwise, only go as far as people are willing to let them. If the shit stinks, it stinks. If it's still legal, then it's legally stinky shit, but it's still shit.
I see no problems with circumventing stinky shit, no matter why it stinks. The textbook scam is well known. It's a huge conjob perpetuated by everyone from the tops of the publishing houses down to individuals at institutions. If it weren't that this were a con of the grandest scale, and that the students have no choice or say in the matter, I would say "just don't buy them" such as is the case with crummy, overpriced music. However, when left with no alternatives, I see nothing wrong with fighting fire with fire. If they don't want the stuff ripped off, they shouldn't be trying to rip off the people who have to buy it.
Or, to put it another way: Boo, fucking, hoo. Addison Weselly et. al. can get down on their knees and take my dick in their mouths for all I care. I hope the companies go under for this shit and the employees turn on management with full bore lawsuits. I'm sick of big corps. taking advantage of everyone else like this, and I'm not going to be some sappy apologist saying "don't stoop to their level" in a lame attempt to excuse spinelessness.
A stupid, feel-good law that should be removed from the books.
Apply that to 99.5% of the other federal and state laws in existence, and you've basically got the U.S. system down pat.
screw up some people's lives by taking nude pictures of themselves with a webcam in the privacy of their own bedroom, and then emailing said pictures to people they don't like and reporting the recipients to the police. Pretty f'ing scary scenerio if you ask me.
You don't need to go that far. Baseless allegations, if properly worded, can cause a serious detriment to a person's life and leave the accusing party completely off the hook. All you have to do is send a nice letter to the FBI saying such and such person MAY have been viewing and/or sharing child pornography or they said something that LEADS YOU TO BELIEVE that they MAY be involved with it in some way.
No evidence necessary, and 9 times out of 10 a search warrant will be issued due entirely to the nature of the allegations, no matter how baseless they are. Then, the cops'll come down on you even harder for your "suspicious" activity of demanding they show some justification for searching / siezing property.
Got an axe to grind? I'm almost willing to guarantee that scenario would work well for you. If you're REALLY careful, a few covert "leaks" about the bogus investigation to friends, family, and co-workers could leave a totally innocent person premanently labeled without a shred of evidence.
Welcome to the American Justice system, where hearsay and public opinion court more power than most people would ever dare dream. We hope you have a nice stay.
Hey Mr. Bush! I didn't know you frequented Slashdot!
His perspective isn't unique. I know a lot of management types with their heads up their asses.
And there's a hell lot more to the internet than Win32.
True, but as a Slashdotter, I thought you knew that the WWW is not the Internet ;). The WWW is overrun by IE-using morons and people who are forced to use it by other IE-using morons. Such as I (I'm a victim.. not one of the morons). I am typing this at work on IE because my IT department [which mostly uses Opera] says that I have to use IE and my boss made us develop our Intranet as an IE-only system. I've fought, scratched, and clawed to no avail. It's the clueless leading the blind, I suppose.
Ditto on my Red Hat 8.0 desktop with Fb 0.7. I experienced the problem back when I used a Windows desktop with an older version of Fb, but I don't know what version exactly and can't test now because the Winbox isn't on the network anymore. It really hurts when I'm trying to Preview and I have to keep reloading until Slashdot sends back some half decent code.
Yea, we wouldn't want the unwashed masses to know things, would we? That would be horrible, what with people trying to better their understanding of things. My god! Think of the implications! By writing these books, we might even inspire a whole new generation of people interested in physics who might *gasp* GO TO SCHOOL TO STUDY PHYSICS! We must find all of these "armchair physics" books and burn them!
I don't know why I bothered to write this post... maybe someone might let me know what the attraction is of trying to explain something as obvious as self-education to a physics idiot-savant.
In some incidences it truly is cheaper to run Windows vs *nix.
Yea... Windows is like the bubble boy of the computer world - the second it comes in contact with anything outside of a highly protected, closely monitored, totally sterilized area the shit hits the fan.. but as long as it stays in its bubble and no disks, network connections, or phone lines ever touch it... hey - TCO is great.
You ain't kiddin'! Hell, my company is, at this very minute, looking for some MCSE-holding kissass morons to tell the upper management folks that we need to upgrade to Windows 2003 and XP. I never really understood why we need to hire kissass morons to come to the conclusion the management has already come to.. but I guess that's just because I don't understand the intracacies of management and Windows system admin...
Maybe you should apply?