If you're talking about criminals you're talking about either probation or parole. After that ends, courts have no jurisdiction to place a tether type device on them. Thus, in order to place such a device on a person, the government would need jurisdiction.
Accordingly, everything I've said is valid.
Let's assume that as a condition of parole a sex offender is ordered not to go near a school. If he really wanted to, he'd simply take it off and go near a school and rape a kid. The unit would never stop it.
I'm sure you're imaging a system where the second it was taken off, a swarm of police would start looking for the guy. You've been watching too much TV. We do not have such system in place. It'd take days for the police to even start looking for them.
That's different than how it would be done in my state. Where I live if you had a CPO (what we would call a personal protection order or PPO) and if it was violated, you'd simply come to court and tell the judge that it was violated. He'd be given an opportunity to respond. Other than your own testimony, you wouldn't have to prove he was there. So unless he had several credible eyewitnesses, and you had none, you'd win.
Also, the way PPOs are done here I seriously doubt a judge would order such a tether system anyways. Tether is only given by a judge prior to sentence with bond or after sentencing in place of jail.
And as someone else stated, both you and him would need a GPS unit. Because even if you could prove he was at a particular place, you'd have to prove you were there too.
I work in a court and deal with defendants on probation on a regular basis. This device simply is not needed.
First, the vast majority of people on probation to not run away.
Second, the ones who do stop reporting are almost always found at home.
Third, the few remaining get found, at most, a few years later.
And the fourth reason is the most important. Anyone who was going to run would simply remove the device and run. The entire purpose of electronic tether is to let people out of jail who are NOT a threat to society who will almost certainly NOT run. These are people with hardly any criminal records and who have good jobs.
On one hand, Bush must be anxious to let companies bring in foreign biological engineers to keep any American from being employed as such. But on the other hand, as a radical right wing Christian, he doesn't believe in biology, so he must also want to keep them out of the country.
But then again, both of these scenarios assume that Bush actually keeps abreast of the news, which is a pretty ridiculous proposition in itself.
Poor marketing?! Are you kidding? I loved those Warp ads with the nuns and the surfing dudes.
The fact that hardly anyone seeing the ads knew what IBM was selling was beside the point. What mattered was that viewers vaguely knew that if you bought Warp nuns could surf the internet and businessmen would have more time for actual water surfing. I strongly commend IBM for brining such pressing concerns into our nation's consciousness.
Bush will not let one American job be eliminated due to environmental concerns. As he'd much rather have all American jobs eliminated by giving them to cheap foreign workers.
Well, I'm wrong. There are cases out there that hold that mere information about future products can be considered trade secrets. E.g., In re Adobe Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, 141 F.R.D. 155 (1992).
It seems like BS to me, but then again nearly all IP law sounds like BS to me.
Web journalists have been releasing information about future products from Apple. How in the heck could products, which will likely be bought by millions, be considered trade secrets?!
I'd sympathize with Apple if the web journalists were releasing proprietary schematics of the inner-workings of their products. But how can the product itself be a trade secret?!
A trade secret is defined as any information that allows a company to make money because it is not generally known. To put it another way, if the economic value of a piece of information relies on it being kept private, it could be a trade secret.
A product has NO value until it is offered for sale. Thus, Apple makes NO money off of these secret products until they are sold.
Apple seems to be under the impression that ANY secret can be a trade secret. But I don't see any legal justification for it.
I agree. The case on point is Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles 279 F.3d 796 (2002). It held that a former Playboy Playmate/former Playmate of the Year could mention those facts on her website.
I don't see how this is any different. It is a fact that Centos uses Red Hat's distro.
I don't see how Red Hat has any legal basis to stop Centos other than FUD.
Seriously, anyone who clicks on crap like that deserves to get screwed! My father-in-law is one of those types. It's a compulsion. He clicks on any spam, pop-up, or banner ad no matter how many times I've told him to stop. I had to set up a very restricted user account on his computer. Essentially he's unable to download or install anything. But he's been spyware free for over a year now.
In America we have "free speech zones" where protesters are locked-in and the press is forbidden to even take pictures of them, let alone talk with them.
For decades they conspired on prices and you claim they "paid the price"?! The price they paid was to give a bunch of crappy CDs to libraries. As far as I'm concerned giving away crap that didn't sell in the first place is hardly punishment.
When Microsoft licenses its OS to large universities, they have to buy a license NOT for every computer, but one for every person who could possibly use a computer. Thus universities still have to buy licenses for students and janitors who would never use a computer.
Could you imagine if TVs were sold that way: "Sorry, kids, you can't use the TV. I could only afford once license."
Sellers of software can put any asinine restriction they want on their products. Consumers are free to accept or to say no.
He's right about one thing, or should I say four. Microsoft hyped the "four pillars" of Longhorn over and over again. But the Longhorn about to be released won't have a single pillar. The irony of an OS without any support is quite telling. Microsoft simply can no longer deliver what it promises.
It's simply too distracted. It's worried about Sony winning the living room. So it releases the Xbox (and don't forget WebTV!). It's worried about Google winning the search war. So it spends a lot of resources on its own search engine. It worried way back about AOL so it created MSN. But the problem with all of these diversions is that none of them make any money.
Microsoft is running scared. It senses that it cannot continue getting people to upgrade their OS and Office year after year, so it's desperately trying to find something, ANYTHING to hold on to.
Microsoft reminds me of the extremely well armed troops in the first Predator movie, shooting in every directing and hitting nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
When are we going to be able to download TVs in the US?!
BTW, do you print them out after downloading, or what?
Adding an "s" to the end of CD makes the noun plural. Thus one CD becomes many CDs.
If you're talking about criminals you're talking about either probation or parole. After that ends, courts have no jurisdiction to place a tether type device on them. Thus, in order to place such a device on a person, the government would need jurisdiction.
Accordingly, everything I've said is valid.
Let's assume that as a condition of parole a sex offender is ordered not to go near a school. If he really wanted to, he'd simply take it off and go near a school and rape a kid. The unit would never stop it.
I'm sure you're imaging a system where the second it was taken off, a swarm of police would start looking for the guy. You've been watching too much TV. We do not have such system in place. It'd take days for the police to even start looking for them.
That's different than how it would be done in my state. Where I live if you had a CPO (what we would call a personal protection order or PPO) and if it was violated, you'd simply come to court and tell the judge that it was violated. He'd be given an opportunity to respond. Other than your own testimony, you wouldn't have to prove he was there. So unless he had several credible eyewitnesses, and you had none, you'd win.
Also, the way PPOs are done here I seriously doubt a judge would order such a tether system anyways. Tether is only given by a judge prior to sentence with bond or after sentencing in place of jail.
And as someone else stated, both you and him would need a GPS unit. Because even if you could prove he was at a particular place, you'd have to prove you were there too.
I work in a court and deal with defendants on probation on a regular basis. This device simply is not needed.
First, the vast majority of people on probation to not run away.
Second, the ones who do stop reporting are almost always found at home.
Third, the few remaining get found, at most, a few years later.
And the fourth reason is the most important. Anyone who was going to run would simply remove the device and run. The entire purpose of electronic tether is to let people out of jail who are NOT a threat to society who will almost certainly NOT run. These are people with hardly any criminal records and who have good jobs.
On one hand, Bush must be anxious to let companies bring in foreign biological engineers to keep any American from being employed as such. But on the other hand, as a radical right wing Christian, he doesn't believe in biology, so he must also want to keep them out of the country.
But then again, both of these scenarios assume that Bush actually keeps abreast of the news, which is a pretty ridiculous proposition in itself.
Mark C. Stephens, aka, Robert X. Cringely, had an interesting article about this topic a few months ago.
Poor marketing?! Are you kidding? I loved those Warp ads with the nuns and the surfing dudes.
The fact that hardly anyone seeing the ads knew what IBM was selling was beside the point. What mattered was that viewers vaguely knew that if you bought Warp nuns could surf the internet and businessmen would have more time for actual water surfing. I strongly commend IBM for brining such pressing concerns into our nation's consciousness.
You'd have to sell your soul and give up any common sense.
Bush will not let one American job be eliminated due to environmental concerns. As he'd much rather have all American jobs eliminated by giving them to cheap foreign workers.
And IBM's PC division chose Windows 95 over OS/2 Warp.
Very interesting argument! Obviously news of a better iPod will cause at least some buyers of current iPod's to wait. Thanks!
Well, I'm wrong. There are cases out there that hold that mere information about future products can be considered trade secrets. E.g., In re Adobe Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, 141 F.R.D. 155 (1992).
It seems like BS to me, but then again nearly all IP law sounds like BS to me.
Web journalists have been releasing information about future products from Apple. How in the heck could products, which will likely be bought by millions, be considered trade secrets?!
I'd sympathize with Apple if the web journalists were releasing proprietary schematics of the inner-workings of their products. But how can the product itself be a trade secret?!
A trade secret is defined as any information that allows a company to make money because it is not generally known. To put it another way, if the economic value of a piece of information relies on it being kept private, it could be a trade secret.
A product has NO value until it is offered for sale. Thus, Apple makes NO money off of these secret products until they are sold.
Apple seems to be under the impression that ANY secret can be a trade secret. But I don't see any legal justification for it.
Well, according to the article the blocking is being done by the LECs, which are merely telephone companies that provide local service.
Well, according to the article the blocking is being done by the LECs, which are merely telephone companies that provide local service.
What the f&ck?! Phone companies are COMMON CARRIERS. They have to carry ALL calls!
I agree. The case on point is Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles 279 F.3d 796 (2002). It held that a former Playboy Playmate/former Playmate of the Year could mention those facts on her website.
I don't see how this is any different. It is a fact that Centos uses Red Hat's distro.
I don't see how Red Hat has any legal basis to stop Centos other than FUD.
Seriously, anyone who clicks on crap like that deserves to get screwed! My father-in-law is one of those types. It's a compulsion. He clicks on any spam, pop-up, or banner ad no matter how many times I've told him to stop. I had to set up a very restricted user account on his computer. Essentially he's unable to download or install anything. But he's been spyware free for over a year now.
In America we have "free speech zones" where protesters are locked-in and the press is forbidden to even take pictures of them, let alone talk with them.
So to answer your question, "yes."
It'd be really hard to create a successful service without disclosing to consumers exactly where the service is available.
For decades they conspired on prices and you claim they "paid the price"?! The price they paid was to give a bunch of crappy CDs to libraries. As far as I'm concerned giving away crap that didn't sell in the first place is hardly punishment.
Yeah, anti-virus is perfect for Microsoft. "You think our OS is insecure? No problem. Subscribe now!"
When Microsoft licenses its OS to large universities, they have to buy a license NOT for every computer, but one for every person who could possibly use a computer. Thus universities still have to buy licenses for students and janitors who would never use a computer.
Could you imagine if TVs were sold that way: "Sorry, kids, you can't use the TV. I could only afford once license."
Sellers of software can put any asinine restriction they want on their products. Consumers are free to accept or to say no.
He's right about one thing, or should I say four. Microsoft hyped the "four pillars" of Longhorn over and over again. But the Longhorn about to be released won't have a single pillar. The irony of an OS without any support is quite telling. Microsoft simply can no longer deliver what it promises.
It's simply too distracted. It's worried about Sony winning the living room. So it releases the Xbox (and don't forget WebTV!). It's worried about Google winning the search war. So it spends a lot of resources on its own search engine. It worried way back about AOL so it created MSN. But the problem with all of these diversions is that none of them make any money.
Microsoft is running scared. It senses that it cannot continue getting people to upgrade their OS and Office year after year, so it's desperately trying to find something, ANYTHING to hold on to.
Microsoft reminds me of the extremely well armed troops in the first Predator movie, shooting in every directing and hitting nothing.