We get royally ripped off in every area of economic activity. And we grin and bear it.
Welcome to treasure isle.
How is investment income treated over there? Here, it's marginal rate if less than a year, 20% if more than a year. Better, same, or worse? If this current trend of "feel good while the Constitution gets ass-raped" law making continues, I'd give it much stronger consideration than I already have.
What are we do do when the vast majority of the population desires a government that is in stark contrast to its Constitution?
Umm, try to remind them that the Constitution was written the way it was for a reason? Agree that something needs to be done (if only to appease Joe Six Pack), and that if it's reasonable and has a time window, we'd consider going along with it?
How about something wild and crazy--Try to explain WHY summarily dismissing rights really wouldn't have made, and won't make a difference in the future.
The average American has the attention span of a three year old on a sugar bender. With the "seekurity" shiny thing dangled in front of them, all reason is seemingly suspended. Somebody has to remind them that abuses have happened in the past, are happening today, and if liberties aren't protected, will happen more and more frequently in the future.
Other than that whole "give us your keys or we throw you in jail" thing, how's the UK when it comes to civil liberties? My wife was born there, and my understanding is that it'd be possible for me to become a naturalized citizen. That being said, what's the overall climate across the pond?
Shouldn't make you any more uneasy than INS doing the same thing does. What do you think happens when an alien commits a crime in this country and their country doesn't take the deportation order?
Sad that this is modded funny instead of insightful. It's true. If you don't like what $CORP does with your information, you find another instance of $CORP to use. Finding $GOV doesn't work that way, and $GOV can do a lot more to your process than can $CORP.
I agree, with some exception. Yes, we do need to reconsider. Such consideration doesn't include warrantless wiretaps against script kiddies. If there is imminent risk to life or property, I'd be willing to concede. To grant broad, non-expiring rights to tap first and ask questions later, you're damned right I'm going to fight it.
Thursday (Fri?) the US Senate passed the "Combatting Terrorism Act of 2001"
Early Friday. It was a rider on the spending bill.
Still have to pass the House (AFAIK) but, THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION IN THE SENATE ABOUT THIS!
Senator Leahy (chair of the Judiciary Committee) raised the issue that it's overbroad. Given that it was an amendment to a spending bill for $40 billion for dealing with terrorism domestically, it's not exactly a surprise that it was passed like beer through a college student.
I do try to remain clueful, especially where online rights are concerned. If my wife and I both die, the EFF and CDT are in for six figure paydays. S'matter of fact, I first mused on this Tuesday evening. Be particularly mindful of my wry comment "We promise we won't wiretap anyone without a magistrate's approval who doesn't really, really, REALLY deserve it." I hate being right sometimes...
And isn't Carnivore or (DCS1000 or whatever) only supposed to examine email headers?
My understanding is that Carnivore can do two things. Pen Register and Tap and Trace. Pen Register can be done without a warrant, and only records from and to information. Tap and Trace, with a warrant, will capture the contents of the email. IIRC, it also works on other traffic in the same way. Pen Register capturing the host, destination, and URL, and Tap and Trace capturing everything.
LOOK AT THE AMENDMENT (Warning: LOTSA legal cites)
on
Net Taps Without Warrants?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
In reality, it's bad. It's not TOTALLY bad. There are SOME protections in place. From the amendment:
(2) EXPANSION OF EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES.--Section 3125(a)(1) of that title is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the comma at the end and inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraphs:
``(C) immediate threat to the national security interests of the United States;
``(D) immediate threat to public health or safety; or
``(E) an attack on the integrity or availability of a protected computer which attack would be an offense punishable under section 1030(c)(2)(C) of this title,''.
Yes, this is scary stuff. Pay attention to section (E) and you'll see that it only refers to those crimes which 18USC1030(c)(2)(C) applies. From that section:
(3)(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more
than five years, or both, in the case of an offense under
subsection (a)(4), (a)(5)(A), (a)(5)(B), or (a)(7) of this
section which does not occur after a conviction for another
offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense
punishable under this subparagraph; and
Now, let's go looking at (a)(4), (a)(5)(A), (a)(5)(B), or (a)(7), for those of you with clean sheets (if you don't have one, you're hosed, as pretty much anything under 18USC1030 gets punished under (c)(2)(C) if you're a repeat offender, as the other portions of (c)(2)(C) point out):
(4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected
computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and
by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains
anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing
obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value
of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;
(5)
(A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program,
information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct,
intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected
computer;
(B) intentionally accesses a protected computer without
authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes
damage; or
... (7) with intent to extort from any person, firm, association,
educational institution, financial institution, government
entity, or other legal entity, any money or other thing of value,
transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication
containing any threat to cause damage to a protected computer; shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
Note that (a)(5)(C) was specificially excluded:
(C) intentionally accesses a protected computer without
authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage;
Subtle shading between (a)(5)(B) and (a)(5)(C), but the key is recklessly causing damage versus simply causing damage.
Essentially, going item by item, if you
(4) Steal from (ie,
intent to defraud),
(5)(A) 0wN,
(5)(B) Cr4cK, or
(7) trade data for money
then you're open to this, according to the law. Now, all the white hats, and an overwelming majority of the grey hats, can likely agree to these conditions. That being said.. There are enough loopholes here to drive a truck through, and I doubt that prosecutors will take the full time to research those specific sections of 18USC1030 which this newfound power would allow them to use. Three cheers to the first person who beats the "slam dunk" case because a prosecutor got a little too zealous in their wiretap and blows the chain of evidence right at the start.
Now, let's look at what this law does NOT cover from 18USC1030. Let's kick it first with (a)(2) and (a)(3).
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or
exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains -
(A) information contained in a financial record of a
financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in
section 1602(n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a
consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are
defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et
seq.);
(B) information from any department or agency of the United
States; or
(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct
involved an interstate or foreign communication;
(3) intentionally, without authorization to access any
nonpublic computer of a department or agency of the United
States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency
that is exclusively for the use of the Government of the United
States or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such
use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and
such conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the
United States;
Wait a second... You can hack (without the non-judicial wiretap, though you're still fux0red under existing law) BANKS, THE GOVERNMENT, AND ANYTHING ELSE, so long as you're not under (a)(4), (a)(5)(A), (a)(5)(B), or (a)(7) as well.
Even further, under (a)(6), also not covered under the Anti-Cyberterrorism amendment, you can keep trading passwords (without the non-judicial wiretap--again, you're fux0red under current law though).
(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined
in section 1029) in any password or similar information through
which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if -
(A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce;
or
(B) such computer is used by or for the Government of the
United States;
In all, it's pretty bad, but they could've done worse. If you give ANYONE the legal authority to wiretap without judicial oversight, you're giving a monkey a loaded revolver. In this case, however, the monkey's more likely to shoot itself than it is to shoot you.
ObDisclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I play one on Slashdot.
Think back and you'll remember everyone complaining that Kevin Mitnick received too harsh a sentence for his hacking/cracking actitivies.
Big difference here... Mitnick was held for four years before seeing a trial. Let's hear it for the sixth amendment ("speedy trial", and all that jazz).
Further, Mitnick's "economic damages" are farcical at best. Mafiaboy, script kiddie that he was, chose to take down Yahoo, Ebay, Amazon, and Dell. Mitnick peeked at AT&T's source, and stole some calling cards. Mafiaboy knocked the primary sales channel for several companies out. Mitnick was (ostensibly) driven by the challenge. Mafiaboy was out to screw companies over.
What he did is really the equivalent of spray painting the front of the local wal-mart
Only if the act of spray painting the local one closed down every Wal-Mart across the country for a few days.
New Terrorism Victims: Privacy and Civil Liberties
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
There are several stories around about the terrorist attacks, what the net has to do with the trail for clues, and what we're looking at in the future. To start, news.com has a story about searches conducted at ISP's. Earthlink was reportedly served with an FISA warrant, which an Earthlink representative called "equivalent to a wiretap." The only people allowed to request an FISA warrant are the directors of the CIA and FBI, and the secretaries of state and defense. All but one of the 7,539 FISA warrant applications since 1978 have been approved. According to the ACLU, not one instance can be found where the target of a FISA warrant was allowed to review the initial warrant application, as it is granted by a secret panel of seven federal judges. Msnbc has more information about the FBI and its searches, with AOL, Yahoo, and Earthlink confirming that they've been cooperating, and Microsoft only saying they "regularly work with law enforcement." Wired has more detail about "a major network service provider" saying that the FBI showed up on Tuesday "with a couple of Carnivores, requesting permission to place them in our core, along with offers to actually pay for circuits and costs." The most troubling quote, from the same anonymous source, is "I know that they are getting a lot of 'OKs' because they made it a point to mention that they would only be covering our core for a few days, while their 'main boxes were being set up at the Tier 1 carriers' -- scary." An anonymous engineer at Hotmail indicated they "are cooperating with their expedited requests for information about a few specific accounts." Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich made a commentary (RealAudio only) on last night's Marketplace on NPR about terrorism and the future of privacy. He closes with a few chilling sentences. "To gain back more of our security, we will give up more of our privacy. We'll do it gladly, if that's the price we have to pay to counter terror. The willing loss of our privacy is likely to be one of the major consequences of the horror that occured September 11th, 2001."
but wouldn't this energy be better spent trying to solve existing problems
Okay, Doctor Drumlin. This is pure science at its best. Thanks to ever-advancing particle accelerators, we have more of an understanding now than ever about the world (and it is a completely different world) that forms us and our universe. From that understanding, we come up with the practical applications.
I can buy all this stuff. It's the logical response. I just hope we don't go down the knee-jerk response path, and start trampling the liberties we enjoy for the most part.
Now more than ever, the community needs to organize to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
That's exactly what scares the piss out of me. Even as a very firm civil libertarian, I waver somewhat on my convictions in the face of something like what happened today. It's purely an emotional response, rather than a logical one. Even with unlimited secret wiretaps and complete world-wide key escrow, it would have been well nigh impossible to prevent today's actions, and my logical mind knows that. As a human though, you have to feel an inexorable pull to do whatever is necessary to prevent this from happening again.
The hard part will be convincing the "man in the street" of the same thing. Come on too strong, and you seem to be a callous whack job. Too soft, and you might as well undo the pants, because your ports aren't the only thing that's going to get probed on the net.
I know it's just the INTP in me talking, but I have to wonder what kind of civil rights atrocities we're going to be looking at in the days and weeks to come.
If you thought the FBI wiretapping Little Nicky Scarfo on only a search warrant was horrifying, consider the bully stick that will be bandied about now. Encryption is bad. Terrorists using encryption got past all our intelligence. Outlaw encryption now! If we didn't have to go through all that judicial rigamarole to keep an eye on terrorists, we would have done better. We promise we won't wiretap anyone without a magistrate's approval who doesn't really, really, REALLY deserve it.
As shocking and horrifying as what happened today is, and as unbelievable that the intelligence community knew nothing about it (or did they?), I am scared shitless about what we have ahead of us.
If you had the dimensions of the blocks, and knew approximately what plastic formula to use, you could flood the market with cheap blocks and undercut Lego themselves.
There already is: MEGA BLOKS. They've got some nifty sets (the USS Kittyhawk set looks cool), but they're not Lego.
In my (and other enthusasts' as well) mind, they just don't stack up against real Legos.
I'm assuming you're speaking to my employer blocking access to hacking sites with this comment.
Yes, I have, which is why I rigorously check everything before sending it on its way. Maybe that has something to do with the fact nothing I've written has been hacked in the 5+ years I've been doing web development. Maybe that also has something to do with why my employer's security crew has been trying to recruit me almost since the day I walked in the door.
Charming. Ever hear of this thing called "reductio ad absurdem"? Just because I can't surf for porn at work doesn't mean I can't at home.
The difference here is that it is part of a judge's job to look at things that may not be socially acceptable. As an example, my employer blocks access to many hacking sites. It is not deemed part of my job function to visit hacking sites. Yes, there is information that is very useful to me as a team lead developer and architect, but such information can usually be found elsewhere, in places I am allowed to access, and I'm always free to browse them in my off time, on my own equipment. OTOH, our data security folks, whose core job function it is to protect against such things have unfettered access to them.
This doesn't even approach the issue of non-judicial personnel having access to the thought processes going into making judicial decisions. If I was a judge, you're damned right I wouldn't want someone looking over my shoulder while doing it. If I found a cogent nugget, I'd cite it in my ruling. Defense attorneys don't have the right to go sifting through the books used in forming a ruling that aren't cited. Why should they have access to web logs for the same?
As long as my employer is allowed to watch everything I do on my connect at work, these judges should be watched as well.
There's a big difference between you and me, and federal judges. Judges interpret laws in a binding fashion. You and I don't. If it's put to a judge to determine whether or not DeCSS infringes DMCA rights, I want them to be able to get out on the net without fear that some administrative pinhead (like you or me) is going to be watching what they're doing. This becomes even more vital in areas of more questionable nature, but of more far-reaching legal importance, such as computer generated porn, for example.
That being said, if they abuse the privilege, downloading MP3's, surfing for pr0n, or anything else outside their job, then by all means, stick it to them.
In all, this is a Good Thing. The issue of workplace privacy has been raised in a very personal way to them. Realize that it wasn't the monitoring that raised their hackles. It was that they were being monitored without being explicitly told it was being done.
Compaq has been mopping up vs HP in PocketPC sales. HP took the hit a while ago with the high color screens that really only did 4096 colors. Given the recent merger, and the shareholder doubts surrounding it, one has to wonder how this will play out in product introductions from each, and whether this is or is not good for Casio, the Number 3 in the PocketPC race.
Don't underestimate the speed to market aspect in handhelds. When Palm announced, but couldn't deliver on, the new models, they dealt themselves a mighty blow. Given the speed of change in handhelds, marketing, technology, and manufacturing all have to be singing off the same page to ensure market success.
Unfortunately, he won't get spanked (as he so richly deserves). The terse reply without any qualification, while not the best answer, will not be meta-modded as it should be.
Or have you recently seen kids lining up at the library to hear the latest Stephen King novel read to them?
I would've been, but then, I started reading his work when I was eight, after having seen "The Shining" on television. I was actually proud of myself when, at age 12, a distant relation who was a librarian said "You shouldn't be reading this book" when she saw me with Updike's "Witches of Eastwick."
Slashdot Mirror
We get royally ripped off in every area of economic activity. And we grin and bear it.
Welcome to treasure isle.
How is investment income treated over there? Here, it's marginal rate if less than a year, 20% if more than a year. Better, same, or worse? If this current trend of "feel good while the Constitution gets ass-raped" law making continues, I'd give it much stronger consideration than I already have.
What are we do do when the vast majority of the population desires a government that is in stark contrast to its Constitution?
Umm, try to remind them that the Constitution was written the way it was for a reason? Agree that something needs to be done (if only to appease Joe Six Pack), and that if it's reasonable and has a time window, we'd consider going along with it?
How about something wild and crazy--Try to explain WHY summarily dismissing rights really wouldn't have made, and won't make a difference in the future.
The average American has the attention span of a three year old on a sugar bender. With the "seekurity" shiny thing dangled in front of them, all reason is seemingly suspended. Somebody has to remind them that abuses have happened in the past, are happening today, and if liberties aren't protected, will happen more and more frequently in the future.
Other than that whole "give us your keys or we throw you in jail" thing, how's the UK when it comes to civil liberties? My wife was born there, and my understanding is that it'd be possible for me to become a naturalized citizen. That being said, what's the overall climate across the pond?
Shouldn't make you any more uneasy than INS doing the same thing does. What do you think happens when an alien commits a crime in this country and their country doesn't take the deportation order?
Sad that this is modded funny instead of insightful. It's true. If you don't like what $CORP does with your information, you find another instance of $CORP to use. Finding $GOV doesn't work that way, and $GOV can do a lot more to your process than can $CORP.
I agree, with some exception. Yes, we do need to reconsider. Such consideration doesn't include warrantless wiretaps against script kiddies. If there is imminent risk to life or property, I'd be willing to concede. To grant broad, non-expiring rights to tap first and ask questions later, you're damned right I'm going to fight it.
Thursday (Fri?) the US Senate passed the "Combatting Terrorism Act of 2001"
Early Friday. It was a rider on the spending bill.
Still have to pass the House (AFAIK) but, THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION IN THE SENATE ABOUT THIS!
Senator Leahy (chair of the Judiciary Committee) raised the issue that it's overbroad. Given that it was an amendment to a spending bill for $40 billion for dealing with terrorism domestically, it's not exactly a surprise that it was passed like beer through a college student.
I actually posted my own uninformed analysis of the amendment here on slashdot.
Follow the news.
I do try to remain clueful, especially where online rights are concerned. If my wife and I both die, the EFF and CDT are in for six figure paydays. S'matter of fact, I first mused on this Tuesday evening. Be particularly mindful of my wry comment "We promise we won't wiretap anyone without a magistrate's approval who doesn't really, really, REALLY deserve it." I hate being right sometimes...
And isn't Carnivore or (DCS1000 or whatever) only supposed to examine email headers?
My understanding is that Carnivore can do two things. Pen Register and Tap and Trace. Pen Register can be done without a warrant, and only records from and to information. Tap and Trace, with a warrant, will capture the contents of the email. IIRC, it also works on other traffic in the same way. Pen Register capturing the host, destination, and URL, and Tap and Trace capturing everything.
Yes, this is scary stuff. Pay attention to section (E) and you'll see that it only refers to those crimes which 18USC1030(c)(2)(C) applies. From that section:
Now, let's go looking at (a)(4), (a)(5)(A), (a)(5)(B), or (a)(7), for those of you with clean sheets (if you don't have one, you're hosed, as pretty much anything under 18USC1030 gets punished under (c)(2)(C) if you're a repeat offender, as the other portions of (c)(2)(C) point out):
Note that (a)(5)(C) was specificially excluded:
Subtle shading between (a)(5)(B) and (a)(5)(C), but the key is recklessly causing damage versus simply causing damage.
Essentially, going item by item, if you
then you're open to this, according to the law . Now, all the white hats, and an overwelming majority of the grey hats, can likely agree to these conditions. That being said.. There are enough loopholes here to drive a truck through, and I doubt that prosecutors will take the full time to research those specific sections of 18USC1030 which this newfound power would allow them to use. Three cheers to the first person who beats the "slam dunk" case because a prosecutor got a little too zealous in their wiretap and blows the chain of evidence right at the start.
Now, let's look at what this law does NOT cover from 18USC1030. Let's kick it first with (a)(2) and (a)(3).
Wait a second... You can hack (without the non-judicial wiretap, though you're still fux0red under existing law) BANKS, THE GOVERNMENT, AND ANYTHING ELSE, so long as you're not under (a)(4), (a)(5)(A), (a)(5)(B), or (a)(7) as well.
Even further, under (a)(6), also not covered under the Anti-Cyberterrorism amendment, you can keep trading passwords (without the non-judicial wiretap--again, you're fux0red under current law though).
In all, it's pretty bad, but they could've done worse. If you give ANYONE the legal authority to wiretap without judicial oversight, you're giving a monkey a loaded revolver. In this case, however, the monkey's more likely to shoot itself than it is to shoot you.
ObDisclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I play one on Slashdot.
Think back and you'll remember everyone complaining that Kevin Mitnick received too harsh a sentence for his hacking/cracking actitivies.
Big difference here... Mitnick was held for four years before seeing a trial. Let's hear it for the sixth amendment ("speedy trial", and all that jazz).
Further, Mitnick's "economic damages" are farcical at best. Mafiaboy, script kiddie that he was, chose to take down Yahoo, Ebay, Amazon, and Dell. Mitnick peeked at AT&T's source, and stole some calling cards. Mafiaboy knocked the primary sales channel for several companies out. Mitnick was (ostensibly) driven by the challenge. Mafiaboy was out to screw companies over.
What he did is really the equivalent of spray painting the front of the local wal-mart
Only if the act of spray painting the local one closed down every Wal-Mart across the country for a few days.
There are several stories around about the terrorist attacks, what the net has to do with the trail for clues, and what we're looking at in the future. To start, news.com has a story about searches conducted at ISP's. Earthlink was reportedly served with an FISA warrant, which an Earthlink representative called "equivalent to a wiretap." The only people allowed to request an FISA warrant are the directors of the CIA and FBI, and the secretaries of state and defense. All but one of the 7,539 FISA warrant applications since 1978 have been approved. According to the ACLU, not one instance can be found where the target of a FISA warrant was allowed to review the initial warrant application, as it is granted by a secret panel of seven federal judges. Msnbc has more information about the FBI and its searches, with AOL, Yahoo, and Earthlink confirming that they've been cooperating, and Microsoft only saying they "regularly work with law enforcement." Wired has more detail about "a major network service provider" saying that the FBI showed up on Tuesday "with a couple of Carnivores, requesting permission to place them in our core, along with offers to actually pay for circuits and costs." The most troubling quote, from the same anonymous source, is "I know that they are getting a lot of 'OKs' because they made it a point to mention that they would only be covering our core for a few days, while their 'main boxes were being set up at the Tier 1 carriers' -- scary." An anonymous engineer at Hotmail indicated they "are cooperating with their expedited requests for information about a few specific accounts." Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich made a commentary (RealAudio only) on last night's Marketplace on NPR about terrorism and the future of privacy. He closes with a few chilling sentences. "To gain back more of our security, we will give up more of our privacy. We'll do it gladly, if that's the price we have to pay to counter terror. The willing loss of our privacy is likely to be one of the major consequences of the horror that occured September 11th, 2001."
but wouldn't this energy be better spent trying to solve existing problems
Okay, Doctor Drumlin. This is pure science at its best. Thanks to ever-advancing particle accelerators, we have more of an understanding now than ever about the world (and it is a completely different world) that forms us and our universe. From that understanding, we come up with the practical applications.
Just stuff I picked up from CNN yesterday ...
I can buy all this stuff. It's the logical response. I just hope we don't go down the knee-jerk response path, and start trampling the liberties we enjoy for the most part.
If we do, then "they" won.
Now more than ever, the community needs to organize to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
That's exactly what scares the piss out of me. Even as a very firm civil libertarian, I waver somewhat on my convictions in the face of something like what happened today. It's purely an emotional response, rather than a logical one. Even with unlimited secret wiretaps and complete world-wide key escrow, it would have been well nigh impossible to prevent today's actions, and my logical mind knows that. As a human though, you have to feel an inexorable pull to do whatever is necessary to prevent this from happening again.
The hard part will be convincing the "man in the street" of the same thing. Come on too strong, and you seem to be a callous whack job. Too soft, and you might as well undo the pants, because your ports aren't the only thing that's going to get probed on the net.
I know it's just the INTP in me talking, but I have to wonder what kind of civil rights atrocities we're going to be looking at in the days and weeks to come.
If you thought the FBI wiretapping Little Nicky Scarfo on only a search warrant was horrifying, consider the bully stick that will be bandied about now. Encryption is bad. Terrorists using encryption got past all our intelligence. Outlaw encryption now! If we didn't have to go through all that judicial rigamarole to keep an eye on terrorists, we would have done better. We promise we won't wiretap anyone without a magistrate's approval who doesn't really, really, REALLY deserve it.
As shocking and horrifying as what happened today is, and as unbelievable that the intelligence community knew nothing about it (or did they?), I am scared shitless about what we have ahead of us.
The other solution is for the OS/FS community to come up with a program which detects all off-site communication.
Uhh, I think we call this thing a firewall. At least, mine does this.
If you had the dimensions of the blocks, and knew approximately what plastic formula to use, you could flood the market with cheap blocks and undercut Lego themselves.
There already is: MEGA BLOKS. They've got some nifty sets (the USS Kittyhawk set looks cool), but they're not Lego.
In my (and other enthusasts' as well) mind, they just don't stack up against real Legos.
Ever hear of testing the boundary conditions?
I'm assuming you're speaking to my employer blocking access to hacking sites with this comment.
Yes, I have, which is why I rigorously check everything before sending it on its way. Maybe that has something to do with the fact nothing I've written has been hacked in the 5+ years I've been doing web development. Maybe that also has something to do with why my employer's security crew has been trying to recruit me almost since the day I walked in the door.
Charming. Ever hear of this thing called "reductio ad absurdem"? Just because I can't surf for porn at work doesn't mean I can't at home.
The difference here is that it is part of a judge's job to look at things that may not be socially acceptable. As an example, my employer blocks access to many hacking sites. It is not deemed part of my job function to visit hacking sites. Yes, there is information that is very useful to me as a team lead developer and architect, but such information can usually be found elsewhere, in places I am allowed to access, and I'm always free to browse them in my off time, on my own equipment. OTOH, our data security folks, whose core job function it is to protect against such things have unfettered access to them.
This doesn't even approach the issue of non-judicial personnel having access to the thought processes going into making judicial decisions. If I was a judge, you're damned right I wouldn't want someone looking over my shoulder while doing it. If I found a cogent nugget, I'd cite it in my ruling. Defense attorneys don't have the right to go sifting through the books used in forming a ruling that aren't cited. Why should they have access to web logs for the same?
As long as my employer is allowed to watch everything I do on my connect at work, these judges should be watched as well.
There's a big difference between you and me, and federal judges. Judges interpret laws in a binding fashion. You and I don't. If it's put to a judge to determine whether or not DeCSS infringes DMCA rights, I want them to be able to get out on the net without fear that some administrative pinhead (like you or me) is going to be watching what they're doing. This becomes even more vital in areas of more questionable nature, but of more far-reaching legal importance, such as computer generated porn, for example.
That being said, if they abuse the privilege, downloading MP3's, surfing for pr0n, or anything else outside their job, then by all means, stick it to them.
In all, this is a Good Thing. The issue of workplace privacy has been raised in a very personal way to them. Realize that it wasn't the monitoring that raised their hackles. It was that they were being monitored without being explicitly told it was being done.
I noticed that there was a bad link to James Tyre's article. The proper link is here.
Compaq has been mopping up vs HP in PocketPC sales. HP took the hit a while ago with the high color screens that really only did 4096 colors. Given the recent merger, and the shareholder doubts surrounding it, one has to wonder how this will play out in product introductions from each, and whether this is or is not good for Casio, the Number 3 in the PocketPC race.
Don't underestimate the speed to market aspect in handhelds. When Palm announced, but couldn't deliver on, the new models, they dealt themselves a mighty blow. Given the speed of change in handhelds, marketing, technology, and manufacturing all have to be singing off the same page to ensure market success.
Unfortunately, he won't get spanked (as he so richly deserves). The terse reply without any qualification, while not the best answer, will not be meta-modded as it should be.
Unless you're talking herbals, tea is equally, and in some cases, even more, potent as coffee.
Or have you recently seen kids lining up at the library to hear the latest Stephen King novel read to them?
I would've been, but then, I started reading his work when I was eight, after having seen "The Shining" on television. I was actually proud of myself when, at age 12, a distant relation who was a librarian said "You shouldn't be reading this book" when she saw me with Updike's "Witches of Eastwick."