Please tell me why you think you need a passport to leave the USA ??
A passport is simply a note from the US state department documenting that you are a USA citizen. Some countries may require you to have one to enter it ( the other country ) But you sure do not need one to LEAVE the usa..
Actually, I've had my passport checked by ICE as I was leaving the US by car. The Sweetwater border crossing in MT requires you to have your passport checked by ICE before you get to the Canadian border. They pulled the car in front of my off to the side and searched it.
And yes, I have see this multiple times at that crossing.
There is no good reason the CBC cannot approach the copyright holders of Creative Commons works the same way they approach the copyright holders of commercial works. In fact the CBC is much more likely to obtain permission without having to spend money in the case of CC-licensed works. There's no good reason why they would have to completely avoid this option.
There's no good reason but there is a reason. There is a lot of money and political clout behind the monied copyright interests. This maneuver benefits them, satisfying "que bono?". The question is whether you think that's a complete and total coincidence caused by a completely free, unprompted, un-coerced, un-pressured decision on the part of CBC. Anyone who wants to believe that so badly that they'll dismiss all other notions as "conspiracy theory, get a perspective" is either naive or deluded.
I've got another reason for you. Time and money. Consider this. Negotiation for license rights = 50/hr (numbers pulled out of my ass. This includes the negotiations, contract signing, accounting to cut any cheque for payment, time for the legal dept to review the contract, etc)
So, to license from a library of works = 4 hours of work. To license from 750 different license holders = 3000 hours of work.
Hmm....$200 in labour for a blanket license, or $150,000 to license 3 songs / podcast (5 shows a week + 2 weeks vacation/reruns in a year. Add in the costs of researching and maintaining records of each license agreement....). As long as the cost of the exclusive library license is less then the cost of negotiating all those individual license agreements, CBC will go exclusive.
Could they go and use CC music? Yeah, no reason not too other then the cost.
Maybe they just didn't have distribution rights for that models images outside of North America? Always possible that is what happened, and it didn't get caught until late enough that it was cheaper to photoshop then reshoot.
I know, I know, how dare I give them benefit of the doubt.
I don't know. I'd love to see a government with enough money invested in an income generating fund that allows them to cut taxes 100%.
Who knows, maybe one day a government that does that would become self-sustainable.
If a government took a long term view (say, 70 years), and invested enough money and then had actual laws (ie. they touch it, then go to jail when they get out of office. If they try to change the law they go to jail.) preventing it's use until its income is X% of tax revenue, then a surplus could be a good thing. Keep the marginal tax rate at something low (say 1% of income) to cover the fluctuation in the market and see what happens.
That's what I like about Alberta labour law. OT is not set by salaried or hourly, but by managerial status (with a few execptions). If you are not a manager, and are salaried, they have to pay overtime.
It is a damage to accountability, but how much is it really? Telling the press (and the public) that they have to wait until after the trial has concluded is something that's been done for many years. Lots of courts have issued publication bans to the media during a trial. As long as the publication ban is removed as soon as the verdict is rendered, is it really that damaging to the accountability?
It's a sword that cuts both ways, especially in a jury trial. If the prosecution feels they have a weak case, they may try to poison the jury pool, however if the defence feels they can make themselves into a martyr to assist their weak case, then they can also do that. To help defend against that, either side can run to the judge for a publication ban, and this just removes that step. It forces both sides to do their fighting in the courtroom itself, and not on the steps outside.
Should a publication ban be in place until all legal avenues have been exhaused? No. An investigation and trial can last for many years. Until both sides have the option to go to in front of a judge to present their cases no publication ban should exist. Once the court procedings have moved onto the appeal stage no publication ban should exist. During the inital trial (at least until the jury has been picked), I can see the justification of a publication ban. Ideally, for a jury you want to pick the most unbiased people you can. A automatic 30 day publication ban (starting once the defendant has seen a judge and been formally charged, but removeable at the judges discretion just as imposing a ban is) can help with that. Once the jury has been picked though, to continue the publication ban requires a signed order from the judge (and one that can be appealed). I'm not entirely happy with that compromise, but given the medias abilty to sensationalize even the most minor events (not that it would ever happen on/.), I would be able to live with that.
and that's the problem. Lets say your non-technical boss sees you using Thunderbird and asked you about it. You tell him that it's better then Outlook, faster, more secure, etc (and yes, I think it is for home use). He knows how good you are, and he trusts you so he installs it. He breaks it, or he can't get to the Global Address Book, or something.
Explain to me why I am now holding his hand troubleshooting Thunderbird? You convinced him, you support him. But I'm sure you have better things to do then train your boss on the software you sold him on. And who is going to explain to his boss why your boss didn't get an email in time since his client was down? Oh wait, that's me because it's my job to support the machines we have in place. So now my ass just got chewed out by a VP because you felt that following the company standard was just not good enough for you.
Hey, you may be right. You may be able to support yourself and not have to call helpdesk when something goes wrong. But who supports all the people that you influenced to follow you that are not as able to support themselves? Who is going to pay for the extra training to get the helpdesk up to speed with all the installed software? It will have to come out of the IT budget, but that means that other training gets sacrificed since we do have a limited budget. Hmmm...train on Thunderbird, or train on disaster recovery???? Obviously train on disaster recovery, but now we can't support Thunderbird and the idiot executive that listened to you and installed it. So now we look bad.
Do you see the problem now? It's not you. It who listens to you and the unforeseen consequences.
We can drive the nukes across the country, we can throw them on a train, or we can fly them. Personally, I'm much happier knowing they are being flown places then being sent via ground. I don't care how many safe guards are in place to prevent the weapons going off accidentally, there is always the risk of a crash sending radioactive material all over the place (not an explosion, but a leak). At least in the air the material is safer from accidents (how many air-to-air collisions are there?), and a plane can always find the most depopulated areas to fly over. Trucks and trains don't have that option.
screw the ACLU, get CBS, and NBC, and FOX involved in this, since if this DA pulls this off they are screwed as news organizations. I go to a protest and get arrested. A news organization films this and broadcasts it. I press charges against the news organization under wiretap laws. The other 1000 people there file charges under wiretapping laws. These charges are done under the precedent set by the DA. It's death by 1001 paper cuts if this guy is found guilty.
Ok, get the ACLU involved as well, but more so get the newsies involved as well. To me they are more important.
Lets say, just for the sake of this argument, that I am from Montana. Lets also say that I don't have a passport. If I am not allowed to enter Federal Buildings without a RealID compliant drivers license or passport, wouldn't that mean that I am now forbidden to enter Federal Court? So now I cannot sue anyone in Federal Court. When the State court and Federal Court share a building, I cannot even go to State Court. And the best part? Since the passport office is a federal building, I can't even go to the passport office to get a RealID compliant ID card. Oh yeah, I can't even meet with the IRS to go over my taxes. I just became a non-person. Of course, that assumes a strict reading of the law, and IANAL.
That being said, as soon as someone tried to enforce me not entering a Federal Court building, the judge would toss that law out. Hopefully.
Ummm, yes you can. If you are able to stop your vehicle safely between the time the light turns yellow and the time it turns red and you run it, then you can get a ticket. And since most people hit the gas to make it, then you can actually get two tickets if the cop doesn't like you, running a red and speeding.
because you're connecting to port 25 and port 80 on another machine. When you send traffic out of your machine it can leave from any port number it wants really.
your.ip.goes.here:9000 -->> www.slashdot.org:80 works. As long as you connect to a valid bound port, it doesn't matter what port you leave from.
( who does their own virus checking btw )
Couple points on that.
1) I don't know how recently they updated their virus scanners.
2) I have yet to see a virus scanner that can guarantee that 100% (not 99.999%, but 100%) of viruses, including ones that have not had their signatures pushed out to the scanners yet, will be caught and stopped.
3) Trust but verify is an expression I use a lot. I will trust that they do virus scanning, but until I can verify it to where I am happy, I won't trust them out of a sandboxed area.
As for a network being weak...
Are you seriously trying to tell me that every company that got hit hard by Sasser, Blaster, and other major viruses were staffed by shitty sysadmins? Come on, lets be realistic here. I cannot stop every bad thing from happening on my network. It's impossible, but I'm not going to lock the front door and just leave the garage door open.
Now, if you could please tell me how I can, without blocking any sites, and with virus scanners that we know cannot block everything, secure my network in such a way that a virus will not propagate to multiple computers and cost lots of money (after all, time is money) for me to clean up I would love to hear it. Keep in mind that even if a single network segment (each department is segmented from each other and the only place they touch each other is through servers), then the exercise is considered a failure. So, just to be clear..... no server may go down at all. Multiple machines in a department may not go down. No blocking of sites.... I'm listening.
Then you should read http://worsethanfailure.com/ to see the stupid things engineers do. Just because someone is educated in one field doesn't mean they know another. My dad is an engineer, and has been since he got his PhD at 25. Does that mean he's a computer wizard? Nope. Nor is my Godfather who is also an engineer and ends up calling his companies helpdesk for things.
ok, so your special. good for you that you can set up a socks proxy and ignore any and all IT policies that you feel shouldn't apply to you. Wow, I'm impressed.
Do you seriously think IT puts these policies in place just for the fun of it? If you accidentally brought down the network and cost the company $10,000, who do you think would get in trouble? You? Nope, the IT guy who let you bypass their security and ignore the policy. You might get a slap on the wrist, but chances are the IT guy is now looking for a new job.
And as for a personal life.....if the company culture/policy is that at work you work, then keep it out of the workplace. You are paid to work, not play. Don't like that idea? Then leave.
And yes, I am posting from work, and yes I am allowed to do it. Chances are my boss will probably see this comment (Hi Jon!!) as he surfs slashdot as well.
We can put a man on the moon, so we can verify ages on the Internet? Yes, that makes a great logical leap there. We can build a car, that doesn't mean we can create skynet.
Why don't we also require some sort of age verification before anyone can call 1-900 numbers? There is no verification for that, and yet it's accessible to minors. OMG!!! Won't someone think of the children??
Oh wait, it's to stop older men from hurting younger women. I guess that means that someone is, just not the parents. Seriously, where does parental responsibility start these days?
"And if you're a legal U.S. resident thinking you'll have no problems, you shouldn't be too outraged if the official decides to detain you or just decides to confiscate your residency card for an arbitrary reason before sending you back."
So how did you get it back each time? I have a green card, but travel between Canada (I am Canadian) and the US all the time and have always worried they would pull it at some time.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, anyone that wants to be a politician should probably be banned from voting (among other things)
Who knows, but at least the prosecutor did the right thing and dropped the charges instead of dragging it on and on and on (and so forth).
Please tell me why you think you need a passport to leave the USA ??
A passport is simply a note from the US state department documenting that you are a USA citizen. Some countries may require you to have one to enter it ( the other country ) But you sure do not need one to LEAVE the usa ..
Actually, I've had my passport checked by ICE as I was leaving the US by car. The Sweetwater border crossing in MT requires you to have your passport checked by ICE before you get to the Canadian border. They pulled the car in front of my off to the side and searched it.
And yes, I have see this multiple times at that crossing.
*ICE = Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
There is no good reason the CBC cannot approach the copyright holders of Creative Commons works the same way they approach the copyright holders of commercial works. In fact the CBC is much more likely to obtain permission without having to spend money in the case of CC-licensed works. There's no good reason why they would have to completely avoid this option.
There's no good reason but there is a reason. There is a lot of money and political clout behind the monied copyright interests. This maneuver benefits them, satisfying "que bono?". The question is whether you think that's a complete and total coincidence caused by a completely free, unprompted, un-coerced, un-pressured decision on the part of CBC. Anyone who wants to believe that so badly that they'll dismiss all other notions as "conspiracy theory, get a perspective" is either naive or deluded.
I've got another reason for you. Time and money. Consider this.
Negotiation for license rights = 50/hr (numbers pulled out of my ass. This includes the negotiations, contract signing, accounting to cut any cheque for payment, time for the legal dept to review the contract, etc)
So, to license from a library of works = 4 hours of work.
To license from 750 different license holders = 3000 hours of work.
Hmm....$200 in labour for a blanket license, or $150,000 to license 3 songs / podcast (5 shows a week + 2 weeks vacation/reruns in a year. Add in the costs of researching and maintaining records of each license agreement....). As long as the cost of the exclusive library license is less then the cost of negotiating all those individual license agreements, CBC will go exclusive.
Could they go and use CC music? Yeah, no reason not too other then the cost.
Maybe they just didn't have distribution rights for that models images outside of North America? Always possible that is what happened, and it didn't get caught until late enough that it was cheaper to photoshop then reshoot.
I know, I know, how dare I give them benefit of the doubt.
I don't know. I'd love to see a government with enough money invested in an income generating fund that allows them to cut taxes 100%. Who knows, maybe one day a government that does that would become self-sustainable. If a government took a long term view (say, 70 years), and invested enough money and then had actual laws (ie. they touch it, then go to jail when they get out of office. If they try to change the law they go to jail.) preventing it's use until its income is X% of tax revenue, then a surplus could be a good thing. Keep the marginal tax rate at something low (say 1% of income) to cover the fluctuation in the market and see what happens.
That's what I like about Alberta labour law. OT is not set by salaried or hourly, but by managerial status (with a few execptions). If you are not a manager, and are salaried, they have to pay overtime.
It is a damage to accountability, but how much is it really? Telling the press (and the public) that they have to wait until after the trial has concluded is something that's been done for many years. Lots of courts have issued publication bans to the media during a trial. As long as the publication ban is removed as soon as the verdict is rendered, is it really that damaging to the accountability?
It's a sword that cuts both ways, especially in a jury trial. If the prosecution feels they have a weak case, they may try to poison the jury pool, however if the defence feels they can make themselves into a martyr to assist their weak case, then they can also do that. To help defend against that, either side can run to the judge for a publication ban, and this just removes that step. It forces both sides to do their fighting in the courtroom itself, and not on the steps outside.
Should a publication ban be in place until all legal avenues have been exhaused? No. An investigation and trial can last for many years. Until both sides have the option to go to in front of a judge to present their cases no publication ban should exist. Once the court procedings have moved onto the appeal stage no publication ban should exist. During the inital trial (at least until the jury has been picked), I can see the justification of a publication ban. Ideally, for a jury you want to pick the most unbiased people you can. A automatic 30 day publication ban (starting once the defendant has seen a judge and been formally charged, but removeable at the judges discretion just as imposing a ban is) can help with that. Once the jury has been picked though, to continue the publication ban requires a signed order from the judge (and one that can be appealed). I'm not entirely happy with that compromise, but given the medias abilty to sensationalize even the most minor events (not that it would ever happen on /.), I would be able to live with that.
and that's the problem. Lets say your non-technical boss sees you using Thunderbird and asked you about it. You tell him that it's better then Outlook, faster, more secure, etc (and yes, I think it is for home use). He knows how good you are, and he trusts you so he installs it. He breaks it, or he can't get to the Global Address Book, or something.
Explain to me why I am now holding his hand troubleshooting Thunderbird? You convinced him, you support him. But I'm sure you have better things to do then train your boss on the software you sold him on. And who is going to explain to his boss why your boss didn't get an email in time since his client was down? Oh wait, that's me because it's my job to support the machines we have in place. So now my ass just got chewed out by a VP because you felt that following the company standard was just not good enough for you.
Hey, you may be right. You may be able to support yourself and not have to call helpdesk when something goes wrong. But who supports all the people that you influenced to follow you that are not as able to support themselves? Who is going to pay for the extra training to get the helpdesk up to speed with all the installed software? It will have to come out of the IT budget, but that means that other training gets sacrificed since we do have a limited budget. Hmmm...train on Thunderbird, or train on disaster recovery???? Obviously train on disaster recovery, but now we can't support Thunderbird and the idiot executive that listened to you and installed it. So now we look bad.
Do you see the problem now? It's not you. It who listens to you and the unforeseen consequences.
This his point. THe judicial branch as this time is a neutral 3rd party. That's why they would be the ones holding the documents in escrow.
We can drive the nukes across the country, we can throw them on a train, or we can fly them. Personally, I'm much happier knowing they are being flown places then being sent via ground. I don't care how many safe guards are in place to prevent the weapons going off accidentally, there is always the risk of a crash sending radioactive material all over the place (not an explosion, but a leak). At least in the air the material is safer from accidents (how many air-to-air collisions are there?), and a plane can always find the most depopulated areas to fly over. Trucks and trains don't have that option.
Or maybe that's just me.
what, no towel? Heaven forbid!!
No they don't
(lets see how long we can get this before someone shuts us down......)
what are you talking about? We don't endlessly argue on slashdot!!! Everything here is nice and polite.
screw the ACLU, get CBS, and NBC, and FOX involved in this, since if this DA pulls this off they are screwed as news organizations. I go to a protest and get arrested. A news organization films this and broadcasts it. I press charges against the news organization under wiretap laws. The other 1000 people there file charges under wiretapping laws. These charges are done under the precedent set by the DA. It's death by 1001 paper cuts if this guy is found guilty.
Ok, get the ACLU involved as well, but more so get the newsies involved as well. To me they are more important.
as long as the military is run by humans, anything containing porn will be protected.
Well, I just ran a quick test. First test had mail leaving my system over port 1527, the second time over port 1529.
Lets say, just for the sake of this argument, that I am from Montana. Lets also say that I don't have a passport. If I am not allowed to enter Federal Buildings without a RealID compliant drivers license or passport, wouldn't that mean that I am now forbidden to enter Federal Court? So now I cannot sue anyone in Federal Court. When the State court and Federal Court share a building, I cannot even go to State Court. And the best part? Since the passport office is a federal building, I can't even go to the passport office to get a RealID compliant ID card. Oh yeah, I can't even meet with the IRS to go over my taxes. I just became a non-person. Of course, that assumes a strict reading of the law, and IANAL.
That being said, as soon as someone tried to enforce me not entering a Federal Court building, the judge would toss that law out. Hopefully.
Ummm, yes you can. If you are able to stop your vehicle safely between the time the light turns yellow and the time it turns red and you run it, then you can get a ticket. And since most people hit the gas to make it, then you can actually get two tickets if the cop doesn't like you, running a red and speeding.
because you're connecting to port 25 and port 80 on another machine. When you send traffic out of your machine it can leave from any port number it wants really.
your.ip.goes.here:9000 -->> www.slashdot.org:80 works. As long as you connect to a valid bound port, it doesn't matter what port you leave from.
( who does their own virus checking btw )
Couple points on that.
1) I don't know how recently they updated their virus scanners.
2) I have yet to see a virus scanner that can guarantee that 100% (not 99.999%, but 100%) of viruses, including ones that have not had their signatures pushed out to the scanners yet, will be caught and stopped.
3) Trust but verify is an expression I use a lot. I will trust that they do virus scanning, but until I can verify it to where I am happy, I won't trust them out of a sandboxed area.
As for a network being weak...
Are you seriously trying to tell me that every company that got hit hard by Sasser, Blaster, and other major viruses were staffed by shitty sysadmins? Come on, lets be realistic here. I cannot stop every bad thing from happening on my network. It's impossible, but I'm not going to lock the front door and just leave the garage door open.
Now, if you could please tell me how I can, without blocking any sites, and with virus scanners that we know cannot block everything, secure my network in such a way that a virus will not propagate to multiple computers and cost lots of money (after all, time is money) for me to clean up I would love to hear it. Keep in mind that even if a single network segment (each department is segmented from each other and the only place they touch each other is through servers), then the exercise is considered a failure. So, just to be clear..... no server may go down at all. Multiple machines in a department may not go down. No blocking of sites.... I'm listening.
Then you should read http://worsethanfailure.com/ to see the stupid things engineers do. Just because someone is educated in one field doesn't mean they know another. My dad is an engineer, and has been since he got his PhD at 25. Does that mean he's a computer wizard? Nope. Nor is my Godfather who is also an engineer and ends up calling his companies helpdesk for things.
ok, so your special. good for you that you can set up a socks proxy and ignore any and all IT policies that you feel shouldn't apply to you. Wow, I'm impressed.
Do you seriously think IT puts these policies in place just for the fun of it? If you accidentally brought down the network and cost the company $10,000, who do you think would get in trouble? You? Nope, the IT guy who let you bypass their security and ignore the policy. You might get a slap on the wrist, but chances are the IT guy is now looking for a new job.
And as for a personal life.....if the company culture/policy is that at work you work, then keep it out of the workplace. You are paid to work, not play. Don't like that idea? Then leave.
And yes, I am posting from work, and yes I am allowed to do it. Chances are my boss will probably see this comment (Hi Jon!!) as he surfs slashdot as well.
We can put a man on the moon, so we can verify ages on the Internet? Yes, that makes a great logical leap there. We can build a car, that doesn't mean we can create skynet.
Why don't we also require some sort of age verification before anyone can call 1-900 numbers? There is no verification for that, and yet it's accessible to minors. OMG!!! Won't someone think of the children??
Oh wait, it's to stop older men from hurting younger women. I guess that means that someone is, just not the parents. Seriously, where does parental responsibility start these days?
"And if you're a legal U.S. resident thinking you'll have no problems, you shouldn't be too outraged if the official decides to detain you or just decides to confiscate your residency card for an arbitrary reason before sending you back."
So how did you get it back each time? I have a green card, but travel between Canada (I am Canadian) and the US all the time and have always worried they would pull it at some time.