I can't help but chuckle every time these come out because all I hear in my head is the line,"All viruses are created after the exploit has been announced."
Remember: politicians don't really believe in anything. They just follow the money This followed by...
Solution? More democracy. Specifically, more votes and more consumer-oriented information Am I the only one that doesn't see that politicians, who are following the money, learned long ago how to rig the votes? More votes isn't going to do anything. The politicians are busy spreading the "consumer-oriented information" of MS=good OSS=bad.
was the risk of lawsuits, wasted money on computers, and digital property rights really an issue? It wasn't at first. Then it became. Then the EULAs began arriving. Then things became progressively worse.
The middle classes You must be thinking of the middle class that nets more than $100k/year.
I'm thinking of the middle class that grosses $50k/year and has spent the last 10 years trying to figure out how to get ahead of the bills still left over from college. I'm eight years out of college with a degree in chemistry and experience with molecular synthesis and design and I still have four pieces of furniture: a bed, a used pressboard entertainment center, a computer desk, and a bean bag chair.
over-priced real estate Spoken like one of those "middle-class" people that can afford to even think about real estate.
IM clients are not pizza ovens. They're light bulbs. Streetlights are a common community service which is funded by indirect subsidy to the power companies. Some people claim that there actually is an electric bill which is sent to the city. I've never seen such a bill and, even if it existed, it's a matter of semantics.
In the case of your electricity:IM analogy I'd say that I pay for my IM service through the portion of my tax dollars that gets redirected to Yahoo! in the form of affirmative action subsidies, technology grants, or any other tax credits they receive. There's also the portion of my money which is funnelled through the products that I buy, to their producers, to the ads those producers pay Yahoo! to host. Whether or not I view their particular ad on Yahoo! is irrelevant. Yahoo! is paid with money that came from me.
Of course, it never works to tell a police officer "I pay your salary!" so I guess I shouldn't expect that it would work with any other bully. Corporate, private, or otherwise.
Yahoo! is a great site and they provide a LOT of stuff for free You have a very short memory. Yahoo provides nothing for free. Remember in '98-'99 when Yahoo! stock was $104/share and every 401(k) plan in the US invested heavily in the technology sector? The CEOs and board members to give some of that back to the company. Instead we have people who are all too willing to grab their ankles and ask the companies to give it to them again.
We've already paid for Yahoo! many times over. It's not our fault that the money was sent up a pyramid scheme which keeps demanding more.
I pay Yahoo! with the portion of my 401(k) investment funds that get diverted to them. I pay Yahoo! with the tax money that the government handed out to the organizations that laid the foundation that allowed Yahoo! to be built. I pay Yahoo! with the portion of tax money that they receive for affirmative action employment, or technology grants or writeoffs. We all paid Yahoo! when their stock was up to $104 and then the execs left us holding the bag when it went back down to $25.
The problem is this: Where you can teach yourself C and learn your networking at home in your basement, you cannot become a doctor through self-education. But you can get a Ph.D. in some of the must mundane academic pursuits possible and, once people have that Ph.D., they get the enormous ego boost of being allowed to speak authoritatively on ANY subject they can lay their hands on.
So essentially the damage being done by the proprietary system is just as bad as the damage being done by the self-taught people. I doubt any self-taught doctor would presume to hold a scalpel and rearrange your body tissues but they might have better insight as to what you could do to prevent ever having to go under the knife than a MD who is focused monetarily and by training to put people on the table.
Unless you are behaving suspiciously Suspicion, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. To a Irish Catholic police officer the average young black male walks, by default, suspiciously. It's a cultural gait. To an African police officer any middle-aged white male wearing a Harley-Davidson shirt walks suspiciously. It's a cultural perception. To any southern rebel white police officer every Asian looks suspicious. It's a perceptive gap.
It would seem to be a fairly easy case to try for the Man mowing the lawn It never gets that far. The only charges pressed are disorderly conduct and obstruction of justice. The police do not need a warrant to be on your property--if that were the case how could they knock on anyone's door without a warrant?
Perhaps if the fellow had a real expensive lawyer but that's always the hitch. "Real expensive lawyer".
The headlines for the newspapers in this area do not read "US Supreme Court rules police can ask for name", they read "US Supreme Court rules police can ask for ID". No matter what the technical ruling of the Supreme Court is, the powers that be are spinning this to spread the impression that a formal, state issued ID is always necessary.
Take for example: If an officer asks for your name and you give it the officer may ask for ID to prove it. If you fail to produce the ID then you are guilty of obstructing justice. At this point the Supreme Court ruling would not apply because you would indeed be guilty of hindering an investigative action--verification of identity.
Take for another example: A fellow on the block always mows his lawn at 8 AM on Saturday morning. He likes to get it done before it gets to be 104 degrees outside and also likes to have it out of the way so that he can enjoy the rest of his Saturday. On a particular Saturday the elderly woman who lives two doors down from him isn't feeling well and calls the police for a noise disturbance on Saturday morning. Normally this wouldn't be an issue but the elderly woman is the mother-in-law of one of the police captains. The captain isn't actually on duty but the patrol officers know that he's going to be in a sour mood if he has to come in to work on Sunday after receiving a telephone call from his mother-in-law early Saturday morning. The patrol officers decide that they'll just take a casual cruise by to see what the situation is. They find the guy mowing his lawn and ask him to stop to speak with them. Normally this wouldn't be an issue but the fellow has had a rough week at work and just wants to get the lawn done to go back to bed. The police ask for his name so that they can fill out their paperwork and the fellow quips "John Doe". He doesn't feel that his name should be included on a report for a noise disturbance because 1) he's mowing his lawn, and 2) the police have declined to identify the person who made the complaint. The police ask for his ID to verify his name. He's out mowing the yard and informs them that the ID is IN HIS HOUSE.
How long can the police detain the man? They certainly don't want to let him go back into his house because then they'll need a warrant to get him to come back out.
Can the police enter the man's home to retrieve the ID without a warrant?
From my understanding of (experience with) the law the police can detain the man for as long as they feel like chatting. If the man turns away from the officers to leave they will physically restrain him and possibly charge him with "obstruction of justice". The situation can continue indefinitely until 1) The man calls his lawyer (which he cannot do because he's out mowing the lawn and the cell phone is in the house), 2) the police get bored (they're always bored which explains why they would detain the man to chat indefinitely), 3) the man takes any action which can be misconstued to be hindering the duties of a police officer.
The stalemate is this: The police will not leave until they have the man's ID. The police will not let the man enter his house to retrieve the ID. The man will NOT give the police permission to enter his house to retrieve the ID.
The solution: The police detain the man until he becomes agitated enough to turn away and try to walk back into his house. The police reach out to restrain the man and immediately charge him with obstruction of justice and disorderly conduct. At this point the police have just cause to enter his house and retrieve his ID. By this time the man is explosive with rage and the police can lock him up or send him to the psyche ward.
Honestly, all of this existed before the Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court ruling just makes it public debate and shows how some lawyers have far too much free time on their hands.
And while at the courthouse you will tell the judge that you are not guilty and point out that you cannot obstruct justice if you aren't able to verify that it really is law enforcement you're obstructing.
Let's be honest. The judge will look at you like you're a DUMBASS.
"He was wearing a uniform, wasn't he?" "He did have a badge, didn't he?" "He did pull up in a squad car, didn't he?"
Quit spouting off with hypothetical armchair red herrings. If your ass was sitting in the front row of a courtroom you'd never have the slightest chance of being "off the hook". You'll have a five minute chat with the public defender where he'll tell you,"Look, you can try to talk your way through this but you probably won't get far. My advice is to plead no contest, pay the tickets, and go about your business." If you choose to try and argue it on your own the judge will look at you like you're on crack, rule in favor of the arresting officer, and that's that.
Unless you happen to have a spare $3k in your pocket to waste on a private attorney who has nothing better to do than waste his time arguing for your theoretical trivialities...
The officer never refused to identify himself because you never asked. And you never asked because the public defender advised you to plead no contest and move along like a good citizen. Whether or not you really asked never becomes an issue and, if it does, you probably don't have a camcorder record of the whole incident anyways in which case, barring the gratuitous $3000 for a private attorney, you'll be lucky if the judge doesn't recommend that the bailiff hold you for a psyche eval if you insist on the point.
What part of "reality" don't you understand? Have the government schools taught you that life is fair?
And what requirement is that? Is that under the "good faith" requirement?
What recourse do you honestly think you have? Do you think the public defender is going to stand up for you? The arresting officer will simply say,"He never asked that" if it ever makes it that far. The truth is that your "public defender" will happily coerce you into simply pleading "no contest" and paying the tickets.
Your armchair view of the way things should be is severely out of line with the way things really are... unless you can afford to waste $3000 on a private attorney that actually gives a rat's butt about the outcome of your case.
Public anonymity to other private individuals has its uses and should be permitted under most cases, but public anonymity to the police is basically hiding from the government, which you should be detained for Your ignorance introduces its own catch-22 as you blatantly ignore the existence of undercover officers.
You've never been properly harassed. You live in a pampered world. Enjoy your false sense of superiority from your podium of privelege.
You have the right to ask the police officer for their ID And they have the right to tell you,"You can find it out on the police report which you can pick up at the courthouse prior to your hearing for this ticket for obstruction of justice."
What constitutes a crime? Can you be under suspicion for jaywalking? Is that enough of a crime to allow them to detain you?
Imagine you're walking down a street and a police officer stops you to engage you in conversation. You're a very busy person and have places to go, things to do, people to see. After 5 minutes of discussing how the weather is the police officer demands your identification. After a few minutes of argument the officer finally cedes that you don't have to produce your formal identification but rather just give him a name. So you say "John Doe". The officer now takes you into custody for obstruction of justice?
Sound far fetched...? I know at least one person who was in this kind of situation and, upon insisting upon his 4th and 5th Amendment rights, was sent to the psyche ward for evaluation.
a) This is all territories except the US and UK -- US and UK discs do not have this protection on them WRONG. Ian's either misinformed, outright lying, or the distributors are doing something funky. I was just at Best Buy over the weekend and every single disc had a warning on the reverse side that the disc may not work properly in some hardware players or with some computer software setups AND included a disclaimer that the publisher was not responsible for any adverse effects.
The BB CD also lacks the CDaudio logo. One other user mentioned that, due to the munging of the error bits to effect the copy protection, the CD no longer qualifies for the official CDaudio standard. Unfortunately a quick scan of this discussion failed to find that post.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes. Not always. I have values.
I can't help but chuckle every time these come out because all I hear in my head is the line,"All viruses are created after the exploit has been announced."
Keep those 0-day exploits coming, boys.
Remember: politicians don't really believe in anything. They just follow the money
This followed by...
Solution? More democracy. Specifically, more votes and more consumer-oriented information
Am I the only one that doesn't see that politicians, who are following the money, learned long ago how to rig the votes? More votes isn't going to do anything. The politicians are busy spreading the "consumer-oriented information" of MS=good OSS=bad.
More votes isn't going to change anything.
It's only illegal if you can afford to purchase the attorneys to file the lawsuit.
was the risk of lawsuits, wasted money on computers, and digital property rights really an issue?
It wasn't at first. Then it became. Then the EULAs began arriving. Then things became progressively worse.
The middle classes
You must be thinking of the middle class that nets more than $100k/year.
I'm thinking of the middle class that grosses $50k/year and has spent the last 10 years trying to figure out how to get ahead of the bills still left over from college. I'm eight years out of college with a degree in chemistry and experience with molecular synthesis and design and I still have four pieces of furniture: a bed, a used pressboard entertainment center, a computer desk, and a bean bag chair.
over-priced real estate
Spoken like one of those "middle-class" people that can afford to even think about real estate.
ooooh oooh another SUV
I'm still taking the bus.
IM clients are not pizza ovens. They're light bulbs. Streetlights are a common community service which is funded by indirect subsidy to the power companies. Some people claim that there actually is an electric bill which is sent to the city. I've never seen such a bill and, even if it existed, it's a matter of semantics.
In the case of your electricity:IM analogy I'd say that I pay for my IM service through the portion of my tax dollars that gets redirected to Yahoo! in the form of affirmative action subsidies, technology grants, or any other tax credits they receive. There's also the portion of my money which is funnelled through the products that I buy, to their producers, to the ads those producers pay Yahoo! to host. Whether or not I view their particular ad on Yahoo! is irrelevant. Yahoo! is paid with money that came from me.
Of course, it never works to tell a police officer "I pay your salary!" so I guess I shouldn't expect that it would work with any other bully. Corporate, private, or otherwise.
Yahoo! is a great site and they provide a LOT of stuff for free
You have a very short memory. Yahoo provides nothing for free. Remember in '98-'99 when Yahoo! stock was $104/share and every 401(k) plan in the US invested heavily in the technology sector? The CEOs and board members to give some of that back to the company. Instead we have people who are all too willing to grab their ankles and ask the companies to give it to them again.
We've already paid for Yahoo! many times over. It's not our fault that the money was sent up a pyramid scheme which keeps demanding more.
you sue them for theft
Are you advocating the SCO business model?
I pay Yahoo! with the portion of my 401(k) investment funds that get diverted to them. I pay Yahoo! with the tax money that the government handed out to the organizations that laid the foundation that allowed Yahoo! to be built. I pay Yahoo! with the portion of tax money that they receive for affirmative action employment, or technology grants or writeoffs. We all paid Yahoo! when their stock was up to $104 and then the execs left us holding the bag when it went back down to $25.
When are you trolls going to quit?
The problem is this: Where you can teach yourself C and learn your networking at home in your basement, you cannot become a doctor through self-education.
But you can get a Ph.D. in some of the must mundane academic pursuits possible and, once people have that Ph.D., they get the enormous ego boost of being allowed to speak authoritatively on ANY subject they can lay their hands on.
So essentially the damage being done by the proprietary system is just as bad as the damage being done by the self-taught people. I doubt any self-taught doctor would presume to hold a scalpel and rearrange your body tissues but they might have better insight as to what you could do to prevent ever having to go under the knife than a MD who is focused monetarily and by training to put people on the table.
Gah. People post stories about Microsoft and include links to microsoft.com, they post stories with links back to slashdot.org ...
Here is the link for linuxfromscratch.
Unless you are behaving suspiciously
Suspicion, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. To a Irish Catholic police officer the average young black male walks, by default, suspiciously. It's a cultural gait. To an African police officer any middle-aged white male wearing a Harley-Davidson shirt walks suspiciously. It's a cultural perception. To any southern rebel white police officer every Asian looks suspicious. It's a perceptive gap.
It would seem to be a fairly easy case to try for the Man mowing the lawn
It never gets that far. The only charges pressed are disorderly conduct and obstruction of justice. The police do not need a warrant to be on your property--if that were the case how could they knock on anyone's door without a warrant?
Perhaps if the fellow had a real expensive lawyer but that's always the hitch. "Real expensive lawyer".
The headlines for the newspapers in this area do not read "US Supreme Court rules police can ask for name", they read "US Supreme Court rules police can ask for ID". No matter what the technical ruling of the Supreme Court is, the powers that be are spinning this to spread the impression that a formal, state issued ID is always necessary.
Take for example: If an officer asks for your name and you give it the officer may ask for ID to prove it. If you fail to produce the ID then you are guilty of obstructing justice. At this point the Supreme Court ruling would not apply because you would indeed be guilty of hindering an investigative action--verification of identity.
Take for another example: A fellow on the block always mows his lawn at 8 AM on Saturday morning. He likes to get it done before it gets to be 104 degrees outside and also likes to have it out of the way so that he can enjoy the rest of his Saturday. On a particular Saturday the elderly woman who lives two doors down from him isn't feeling well and calls the police for a noise disturbance on Saturday morning. Normally this wouldn't be an issue but the elderly woman is the mother-in-law of one of the police captains. The captain isn't actually on duty but the patrol officers know that he's going to be in a sour mood if he has to come in to work on Sunday after receiving a telephone call from his mother-in-law early Saturday morning. The patrol officers decide that they'll just take a casual cruise by to see what the situation is. They find the guy mowing his lawn and ask him to stop to speak with them. Normally this wouldn't be an issue but the fellow has had a rough week at work and just wants to get the lawn done to go back to bed. The police ask for his name so that they can fill out their paperwork and the fellow quips "John Doe". He doesn't feel that his name should be included on a report for a noise disturbance because 1) he's mowing his lawn, and 2) the police have declined to identify the person who made the complaint. The police ask for his ID to verify his name. He's out mowing the yard and informs them that the ID is IN HIS HOUSE.
How long can the police detain the man? They certainly don't want to let him go back into his house because then they'll need a warrant to get him to come back out.
Can the police enter the man's home to retrieve the ID without a warrant?
From my understanding of (experience with) the law the police can detain the man for as long as they feel like chatting. If the man turns away from the officers to leave they will physically restrain him and possibly charge him with "obstruction of justice". The situation can continue indefinitely until 1) The man calls his lawyer (which he cannot do because he's out mowing the lawn and the cell phone is in the house), 2) the police get bored (they're always bored which explains why they would detain the man to chat indefinitely), 3) the man takes any action which can be misconstued to be hindering the duties of a police officer.
The stalemate is this: The police will not leave until they have the man's ID. The police will not let the man enter his house to retrieve the ID. The man will NOT give the police permission to enter his house to retrieve the ID.
The solution: The police detain the man until he becomes agitated enough to turn away and try to walk back into his house. The police reach out to restrain the man and immediately charge him with obstruction of justice and disorderly conduct. At this point the police have just cause to enter his house and retrieve his ID. By this time the man is explosive with rage and the police can lock him up or send him to the psyche ward.
Honestly, all of this existed before the Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court ruling just makes it public debate and shows how some lawyers have far too much free time on their hands.
And while at the courthouse you will tell the judge that you are not guilty and point out that you cannot obstruct justice if you aren't able to verify that it really is law enforcement you're obstructing.
Let's be honest. The judge will look at you like you're a DUMBASS.
"He was wearing a uniform, wasn't he?"
"He did have a badge, didn't he?"
"He did pull up in a squad car, didn't he?"
Quit spouting off with hypothetical armchair red herrings. If your ass was sitting in the front row of a courtroom you'd never have the slightest chance of being "off the hook". You'll have a five minute chat with the public defender where he'll tell you,"Look, you can try to talk your way through this but you probably won't get far. My advice is to plead no contest, pay the tickets, and go about your business." If you choose to try and argue it on your own the judge will look at you like you're on crack, rule in favor of the arresting officer, and that's that.
Unless you happen to have a spare $3k in your pocket to waste on a private attorney who has nothing better to do than waste his time arguing for your theoretical trivialities...
The officer never refused to identify himself because you never asked. And you never asked because the public defender advised you to plead no contest and move along like a good citizen. Whether or not you really asked never becomes an issue and, if it does, you probably don't have a camcorder record of the whole incident anyways in which case, barring the gratuitous $3000 for a private attorney, you'll be lucky if the judge doesn't recommend that the bailiff hold you for a psyche eval if you insist on the point.
What part of "reality" don't you understand? Have the government schools taught you that life is fair?
And what requirement is that? Is that under the "good faith" requirement?
What recourse do you honestly think you have? Do you think the public defender is going to stand up for you? The arresting officer will simply say,"He never asked that" if it ever makes it that far. The truth is that your "public defender" will happily coerce you into simply pleading "no contest" and paying the tickets.
Your armchair view of the way things should be is severely out of line with the way things really are... unless you can afford to waste $3000 on a private attorney that actually gives a rat's butt about the outcome of your case.
Public anonymity to other private individuals has its uses and should be permitted under most cases, but public anonymity to the police is basically hiding from the government, which you should be detained for
Your ignorance introduces its own catch-22 as you blatantly ignore the existence of undercover officers.
You've never been properly harassed. You live in a pampered world. Enjoy your false sense of superiority from your podium of privelege.
You have the right to ask the police officer for their ID
And they have the right to tell you,"You can find it out on the police report which you can pick up at the courthouse prior to your hearing for this ticket for obstruction of justice."
Don't be naive...
Which only applies if you can afford a private attorney. The "public defender" will tell you to pay the tickets and get on with life.
There is no indignation in being butt-ganked by the all-knowing Big Brother.
What constitutes a crime? Can you be under suspicion for jaywalking? Is that enough of a crime to allow them to detain you?
Imagine you're walking down a street and a police officer stops you to engage you in conversation. You're a very busy person and have places to go, things to do, people to see. After 5 minutes of discussing how the weather is the police officer demands your identification. After a few minutes of argument the officer finally cedes that you don't have to produce your formal identification but rather just give him a name. So you say "John Doe". The officer now takes you into custody for obstruction of justice?
Sound far fetched...? I know at least one person who was in this kind of situation and, upon insisting upon his 4th and 5th Amendment rights, was sent to the psyche ward for evaluation.
I recommend the Gentoo 2004.1 CD's
s/Monday morning vitamins/Obligatory TRY GENTOO plug/
a) This is all territories except the US and UK -- US and UK discs do not have this protection on them
WRONG. Ian's either misinformed, outright lying, or the distributors are doing something funky. I was just at Best Buy over the weekend and every single disc had a warning on the reverse side that the disc may not work properly in some hardware players or with some computer software setups AND included a disclaimer that the publisher was not responsible for any adverse effects.
The BB CD also lacks the CDaudio logo. One other user mentioned that, due to the munging of the error bits to effect the copy protection, the CD no longer qualifies for the official CDaudio standard. Unfortunately a quick scan of this discussion failed to find that post.