I suspect it means that the popup blocker, new download protector, IE plug in controls, window relocation blocker, e-mail screening, and e-mail bug blocker will not be made available for anything but XP-SP2. Which kinda sucks, but is mostly OK. If only it were possible to view the "Downloaded Program Files" folder without Windows Explorer filtering the contents; possibly the plug-in manager would improve that, but I doubt it. I've found the best blocker for these stupid add-ins and adware pieces is creating an empty NTFS folder where it wants to go... and then setting all permissions to "Everyone -- Deny".
This is much akin to having a driver's license and speeding.
A good analogy! Except... driving is NOT a right; it is a privilege. Use of a car (as opposed to passage on foot, or being driven by a licensed individual) is not considered a right. Free speech is a right. And, "Cutting through the acronyms and argot that littered
the hearing testimony, the Internet may fairly be regarded as a
never-ending worldwide conversation. The Government may not,
through the CDA, interrupt that conversation. As the most
participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet
deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion." (Judge Dalzell in ACLU v Reno, 1996; upheld before the Supreme Court on appeal in Reno v ACLU, 96-511.)
We have an explicitly assured right to freedom of speech by the first amendment. ("If you can keep it" --Ben Franklin. Shut up, Ben....) Slightly different.
It is pretty clear that it's based on courtroom proceedings.
Um.... if it was made a separate offense if you did not immediately go to the police and provide them your name, address, and fingerprints after committing a murder, would that be constitutional too?
(To anticipate one possible objection: perjury is different. You need not testify, unless granted immunity; you may take the fifth otherwise. If you do, however, you can THEN be prosecuted for lying.)
I am not a lawyer; I just drink with them. Unless you are one, I suggest that neither of us is qualified to offer an expert opinion.
I don't expect the mainstream press to know any better, but this is Slashdot.[...]
A hacker is a skilled, passionate computer programmer -- nothing more.
Alas, the evidence of history is NOT on your side. Prior to the backlash from a CBS News story, the term "hacking" was indeed routinely used for the subset of hackish activity including subtle systems penetration and perversion. At that time, cracking was indeed a genuine (if largely frowned upon) subset of hacking.
The semantic distinction of "cracking" (systems penetration and perversion, whether subtle or as-now-usually-not) from "hacking" (in its many zen senses of the word) would be a useful one, had the computer community made it prior to exposure to the common parlance. We didn't. And thus this distinction can no longer be made usefully. (Feel feel to argue with me if you want over whether or not this was a bigger lack of forethought than the 32 bit IP addressing scheme, as long as you're buying the beer while we argue.)
What we could arguably do is try and find a new catch phrase for the terms covered by the now-corrupted "hack". Of course, anyone who can spread that kind of agreement in the hacker community should be shipped to the Middle East immediately to settle the Arab/Israeli conflict-- they're wasted at whatever they're doing now.
Now, now, there might be someone who might go to that page with IE. However, no doubt the Slashdot community would be interested in attempting their own effort at reverse engineering the trojan that they want you to download.
Of course, anyone who installs that on a non-isolated, non-virtual machine pretty much deserves the results. It looks like it has the standard "Software\Microsoft\Windows\Current Version\Run", "Software\Microsoft\Windows\Current Version\RunServices", and "SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SafeBoot\" registry hooks. (Unix "strings" is your friend....)
Which is exactly why any member of the Senate, given permission (as indicated by the configuration of the shared drives) to access Senate-authored documents (written on taxpayer-funded time), is permitted and even obligated to disclose them if he feels the public deserves to know the contents.
The "given permission" is debatable, as the reports I have read were that the open share was a misconfiguration, and that it was pointed out to Mr. Miranda as a misconfiguration by his predecessor. Speaking as an experienced cracker of rather greyish hat, an obvious systems administrator screw up (EG, such as setting a mail Spool folder chmod 777) does not constitute de jure "permission".
There is also a difference between full disclosure to the public of evidence of unethical tactics, and searching for information that can be used by your boss to be used for private political advantage.
Had Mr. Miranda, without being informed by his predecessor, stumbled across the share by mistake (say, by mistyping the name of a similar share), poked around the contents trying to figure out what the folder held without realizing the contents were intended to be private, discovered evidence of racial profiling in judge selection, and immediately gone to his boss, and then openly gone to the press-- then there would have been no unethical conduct that I can see. However, that is rather different from what happened.
Here is a link for those of you who want to see the phone and don't mind that these particular photos show people wearing clothes.
Although the chick in the blue TShirt might as well be wearing paint.
(I'm curious how this website stands up to being slashdotted.:-)
Apparently quite well. Brad's a VERY old net hand, and ran a commercial UPI/Reuters news relay service via NNTP. The man understands bandwidth. I doubt his server could handle the 500 million hits that CNN took September 11 and 12 in 2001, but the pitiful hundred thousand hits that a typical slashdotting seems to generate is probably just a good routine server test for a pro like him.
Q. What is the policy on taking pictures?
A. Film and video cameras are forbidden without permission. All video cameras must be registered and tagged. This is to protect the privacy of participants and artists alike. Use Agreement forms for personal video cameras will be available upon arrival at the Gate, the Greeter's Station or Playa Info. If you are considering filming or videotaping for professional purposes, you must have a commercial agreement on file with the Media Team prior to your arrival onsite. Commercial use of images taken at Burning Man without permission is subject to cunning legal action and punishable by death. This includes amateurs and professionals who capture images. Click here for further information.
He's done this before, so he probably got permission for the camera. (He regularly does a panorama, it seems.)
And what about the people who needed human blood products in order to stay alive
Their life expectancies are still better than they would have been through most of history, even if they are at substantial risk of AIDS.
Also, some of us/.ers regularly give blood (I'm picking up my two gallon pin next month). And, as noted, since we're in the celibate "safe" pool (well, the majority of us who also don't usually inject recreational drugs), there's at least hope until either a cure is found, or AIDS develops a pneumonic form to match the black death.
Can someone tell me what the difference is between voting "none of the above", i.e. not voting, and voting for a third party who won't do anything?
Third parties in the United states serve as a source of direction for the larger parties. When the little guys start growing, the big guys know it's time to shift their policies to get back the votes-- or fade into obscurity.
The exceptions have been few. In a few cases, a figure of sufficient charisma and political clout has been disatisfied, and sparked a flare for a few years-- such as Teddy Roosevelt and Perot did. The end result isn't much different than other third parties. The other exception is the Republicans themselves; the issue that rose them to prominence so polarized the country that civil war resulted. Let's hope they don't go back that far to their roots. =)
Of course, the unity of the big two is now, and has always been, an illusion. The "Dixiecrat" faction is noted in the Democrats, and while all Republicans seem to be either Religious Right or Fiscal Conservative, the majority are not both.
It's looking like Bush will win Florida with or without Nader on the ballot.
That forcast, while possible, is not blindingly obvious one way or another to me, yet. Unless you're one of those assuming that George's brother figured out how to rig it last time, and will figure it out again?
As father of five kids, with seven people in the house, basic things such as [...] compact flourescent bulbs, and so on have been the mainstay.
Caveat Pater: I've seen reports of studies that show flourescent lighting exacerbates hyperactivity and ADD. Mind you, the savings is usually worth it if the kids don't go completely disfunctional-- but you'll want to chase the kids outside as much as you possibly can. It's good for them, anyway.
A good idea, but not until the current waste situation has been sorted out.
The comment was also advocating breeder reactors. Breeder reactors require reprocessing. Reprocessing has two effects: it extracts plutonium that is semi-suitable for bombs (more so the more regularly you reprocess), and it changes the character of the waste situation. Residual waste after reprocessing is lower in mass (since you've removed the fairly inert bulk of U238), higher in radioactivity per gram (since you've removed the fairly intert...), and needs to be stored for a shorter eternity (~1000 years, rather than 100000).
Breeder reactors reduce the current waste problem as a by-product. Of course, there's the terrorism/proliferation questions of plutonium-- but that's not "waste", that's "fuel" or "weapon", take your pick.
I was a prisoner in my home until I was 16 and allowed to drive a car. After-school options until that age were curtailed by the lack of transportation. It would have been good to have some kind of after-school clubs to go to, but who's gonna drive us home? Our school was 7 miles away.
My high school location/situation was similar-- suburbs, 4.5 miles to school -- but with different results. One difference was that there were "late run" busses. School let out at about 3, with about 40 bus routes for the mass exodus. However, there was also a trio at 4:15 (when clubs let out) and another pair at 5:15 (for sports) that ran less detailed routes. The walk from the nearest stop was a little further-- I was lucky, and only had an extra two blocks; four or five was about the longest, except for one fractal neighborhood development that they simply dropped off at the entrance to (eight blocks worst case). And for the few times the club was going to run later than that, I would call my dad at work to let him know; on his way back from work, he'd stop by the school-- and expected me waiting out front.
Another alternative I used was a bicycle. The hills weren't TOO bad in that area; I wasn't bothered by light rain, and thunderstorms were infrequent. (Winter snow was another problem; yeah, then a car would have been nice.) The cost of maintenance for a 10-speed is much lower than that of a car, no worries on insurance, and your parents are usually stuck with the bicycle fuel bills. I biked to school for a good part of the school year, and biked around town several summers. There was a nice 60 mile bike trail that had it's middle near the high school; one summer I decided to see both ends; told my parents, had an early breakfast, packed a lunch, was back for a late dinner.
Quality public transportation is a good thing, in suburbs or city; it helps sustain lower incomes, and provides options for middle class youth. Good bicycle routes help reduce pollution, and provide the motivated with a healthy transportation alternative. SanFran is a little hilly for most non-pro cyclists, but most cities and 'burbs aren't quite so bumpy. =)
The quality of life for kids in the suburbs depends on the community. In a rainy, hilly 'burb, with both parents working and having a 75 minute commute to their jobs, and a wretched school bussing problem, I can see how that would suck.
Personally, I can't conceive of accessing information published on a publicly accessible share as illegal.
If I leave my car unlocked with the keys in the ignition, it's stupid as hell of me, and my insurance company probably wouldn't pay up, but it's still grand theft auto if a damn teenager take my Porsche for a joyride.
The files did not belong to the Republicans. Had a Democratic staffer accidentally broken the lock on his office door so that any key would open it, I am sure we can both agree he would be a moron to not notice it and get it fixed. Ditto his boss. On the other hand, it would not be ethical for a Republican staffer who noticed that to then wander in and out after hours for a few months, reading the papers from the office desk and file cabinets. Whether it is actually criminal is a question for a jury. (EG, does the system administrator have the right to "Authorize" people to access files without the permision of the House members and staff, making his careless share a de jure "authorization".)
Consider some alternate scenarios.
In both of your scenarios (a war, and a football or other sporting competition-- essentially a mock war), the two sides are out for diametrically opposing goals, seeking the explicit detriment of the other side. In the House of Representatives, the two sides are both supposedly serving the best interests of the country, albeit from the focus of their respective constituencies. All parties take a shared oath to the Constitution. Furthermore, such "Ungentlemanly" conduct almost certainly a violation of the House's own Code of Ethics for Government Service.. To quote: "Any person in Government service should: 1. Put loyalty to the highest moral principals and to country above loyalty to Government persons, party, or department." (The page explicitly states this applies to the elected officials themselves, as well.)
The debate between the Republican and the Democratic parties has always been on how these United States are best served-- on the road, not the direction.
If this is no longer the case, I fear for my country.
There is a difference between taking advantage of data for which you have responsibility and data which is not your responsibility.
Agreed; the former is an abuse of explicitly imparted trust and powers; the latter is a far less egregious fault. However, that the latter is less deeply wrong does not make the latter behavior ethical.
note how the successful political campaigns usually say something about their candidate
Well, Kerry's does. His campaign says: "John Kerry is not George Bush". Which is enough to get my interest. Add in that he does indeed have a hope in hell of being elected, and that's about enough to save him from almost anything short of an indictment for Treason.
More seriously, an attack campaign on the Democrats part would be REALLY STUPID-- even if doing so might swing the 937 popular votes needed to be the difference between winning and losing this time. If Kerry looses, he goes back to the Senate-- a position much better than Edwards will be in if they win. The Republicans have been ruthless, partisan, uncompromising, and divisive. This has pissed off a LOT of moderates at them. Running a negative campaign for the presidency would cost the Democrats their higher moral ground.
The Republicans forget that strength without flexibility is brittle. Even if Kerry loses, the Republican party has the potential to shatter itself before the next election.
All he did was attach to an OPEN SHARE DRIVE on the Senate LAN.
...containing files that no person had authorized him to access, and which as a lawyer he was ethically obligated to NOT examine, but rather report the appropriate authorities-- to wit, the opposition.
Were the Democrats mindbogglingly stupid? Yes. Should the Democratic sysadmin be summarily fired? Yes-- and probably even fired from a cannon into a brick wall. Was an initial discovery of this open share possibly accidentally? Absolutely. Was this a "hack" doable by the average seven-year old? Very likely.
Was the conduct of the Republicans ethical? In no way, shape, or form. Was it criminal? Possibly; a judge and/or jury needs to sort out the meaning of "authorized" in this context. Computer intrusion law may stretch to cover Mr. Miranda, but not his bosses-- although conspiracy might stretch that far.
Is this the sort of person you want representing you? Speaking for myself: no, to both the idiot Democrats and the unethical Republicans. What the Republicans should have done was made sure the Democrats knew to fix it, and then made sure the press knew that the Democrats had been stupid, and the Republicans had been "gentlemenly" about it and not taken advantage of those poor bumpkins.
Likely not, but what if the files are DMR-locked (somehow) to only play with a Longhorn-capable client? Reverse engineering would go against the DMCA likely.
I'd think that would be difficult to impossible for Windows to lock out Apple without it being accused of egregious violations of the settlement agreement. If Apple doesn't want to let people use iTunes to copy files to the hard drive in AAC format, that's stupid-- but fine. If Microsoft doesn't want to let Apple's iTunes copy files to the hard drive, or doesn't want to allow Macs to play these new DRMed CDs, that's probably Microsoft taking advantage of it's dominant monopoly position to crush competition in violation of at least one settlement agreement-- not fine. Unless by "fine" you mean "Gigabuck Federal fine, followed by summary judgement ordering corporate break-up."
I doubt Microsoft is stupid enough to try screwing Apple that egregiously and publicly; after all, Apple can be made to pay "reasonable and non-discriminatory" license fees. Linux, on the other hand, is set up to be well and truly screwed via DMCA, patents, and the RNDLAs, and the GPL.
True. However, it is more ambiguous than "million million million", as absent minded Brits might interpret it as a "million million million million".
Or would you rather they say 6.0 × 10^18?
Yes.
Most people can't imagine that.
Most people can't imagine it anyway, whether you call it "six billion billion", "6.0 x 10^18", "6 x 2^60", or "1.27 x e^43". Or understand any number higher than the number of dollars they carry in their wallet, for that matter. Anyone who needs to make any decisions in life based on this ZMS number ought to be able to understand it any of those ways (although getting help from a calculator for the last one or even two is understandable). Of course, many people manage things they can't understand. This is life.
Actually, there's a much better explanation. Traditionally liberal-minded folk generally aren't very creative,
This isn't saying much, really: Overall, most people "generally aren't very creative", whether liberal or conservative. Of those who are... hm, why is it that the conservatives are all complaining about Hollywood having such massive liberal bias?
Slashdot Mirror
How Microsoft is reconciling that with THIS:
"Microsoft remains committed to providing security updates to our customers for all supported Windows versions."
I suspect it means that the popup blocker, new download protector, IE plug in controls, window relocation blocker, e-mail screening, and e-mail bug blocker will not be made available for anything but XP-SP2. Which kinda sucks, but is mostly OK. If only it were possible to view the "Downloaded Program Files" folder without Windows Explorer filtering the contents; possibly the plug-in manager would improve that, but I doubt it. I've found the best blocker for these stupid add-ins and adware pieces is creating an empty NTFS folder where it wants to go... and then setting all permissions to "Everyone -- Deny".
A good analogy! Except... driving is NOT a right; it is a privilege. Use of a car (as opposed to passage on foot, or being driven by a licensed individual) is not considered a right. Free speech is a right. And, "Cutting through the acronyms and argot that littered the hearing testimony, the Internet may fairly be regarded as a never-ending worldwide conversation. The Government may not, through the CDA, interrupt that conversation. As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion. " (Judge Dalzell in ACLU v Reno, 1996; upheld before the Supreme Court on appeal in Reno v ACLU, 96-511.)
We have an explicitly assured right to freedom of speech by the first amendment. ("If you can keep it" --Ben Franklin. Shut up, Ben....) Slightly different.
Um.... if it was made a separate offense if you did not immediately go to the police and provide them your name, address, and fingerprints after committing a murder, would that be constitutional too? (To anticipate one possible objection: perjury is different. You need not testify, unless granted immunity; you may take the fifth otherwise. If you do, however, you can THEN be prosecuted for lying.)
I am not a lawyer; I just drink with them. Unless you are one, I suggest that neither of us is qualified to offer an expert opinion.
Alas, the evidence of history is NOT on your side. Prior to the backlash from a CBS News story, the term "hacking" was indeed routinely used for the subset of hackish activity including subtle systems penetration and perversion. At that time, cracking was indeed a genuine (if largely frowned upon) subset of hacking.
The semantic distinction of "cracking" (systems penetration and perversion, whether subtle or as-now-usually-not) from "hacking" (in its many zen senses of the word) would be a useful one, had the computer community made it prior to exposure to the common parlance. We didn't. And thus this distinction can no longer be made usefully. (Feel feel to argue with me if you want over whether or not this was a bigger lack of forethought than the 32 bit IP addressing scheme, as long as you're buying the beer while we argue.)
What we could arguably do is try and find a new catch phrase for the terms covered by the now-corrupted "hack". Of course, anyone who can spread that kind of agreement in the hacker community should be shipped to the Middle East immediately to settle the Arab/Israeli conflict-- they're wasted at whatever they're doing now.
Of course, anyone who installs that on a non-isolated, non-virtual machine pretty much deserves the results. It looks like it has the standard "Software\Microsoft\Windows\Current Version\Run", "Software\Microsoft\Windows\Current Version\RunServices", and "SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SafeBoot\" registry hooks. (Unix "strings" is your friend....)
The "given permission" is debatable, as the reports I have read were that the open share was a misconfiguration, and that it was pointed out to Mr. Miranda as a misconfiguration by his predecessor. Speaking as an experienced cracker of rather greyish hat, an obvious systems administrator screw up (EG, such as setting a mail Spool folder chmod 777) does not constitute de jure "permission".
There is also a difference between full disclosure to the public of evidence of unethical tactics, and searching for information that can be used by your boss to be used for private political advantage.
Had Mr. Miranda, without being informed by his predecessor, stumbled across the share by mistake (say, by mistyping the name of a similar share), poked around the contents trying to figure out what the folder held without realizing the contents were intended to be private, discovered evidence of racial profiling in judge selection, and immediately gone to his boss, and then openly gone to the press-- then there would have been no unethical conduct that I can see. However, that is rather different from what happened.
It's inconceivable!
Drat it, the proper canonical format for that joke is "My pid is Inigo Montoya. You kill-9 my parent process. Prepare to vi."
Although the chick in the blue TShirt might as well be wearing paint.
(I'm curious how this website stands up to being slashdotted. :-)
Apparently quite well. Brad's a VERY old net hand, and ran a commercial UPI/Reuters news relay service via NNTP. The man understands bandwidth. I doubt his server could handle the 500 million hits that CNN took September 11 and 12 in 2001, but the pitiful hundred thousand hits that a typical slashdotting seems to generate is probably just a good routine server test for a pro like him.
Q. What is the policy on taking pictures?
A. Film and video cameras are forbidden without permission. All video cameras must be registered and tagged. This is to protect the privacy of participants and artists alike. Use Agreement forms for personal video cameras will be available upon arrival at the Gate, the Greeter's Station or Playa Info. If you are considering filming or videotaping for professional purposes, you must have a commercial agreement on file with the Media Team prior to your arrival onsite. Commercial use of images taken at Burning Man without permission is subject to cunning legal action and punishable by death. This includes amateurs and professionals who capture images. Click here for further information.
He's done this before, so he probably got permission for the camera. (He regularly does a panorama, it seems.)
If so, most states allow the option to try for a write in campaign. Does NH?
Their life expectancies are still better than they would have been through most of history, even if they are at substantial risk of AIDS.
Also, some of us /.ers regularly give blood (I'm picking up my two gallon pin next month). And, as noted, since we're in the celibate "safe" pool (well, the majority of us who also don't usually inject recreational drugs), there's at least hope until either a cure is found, or AIDS develops a pneumonic form to match the black death.
Third parties in the United states serve as a source of direction for the larger parties. When the little guys start growing, the big guys know it's time to shift their policies to get back the votes-- or fade into obscurity.
The exceptions have been few. In a few cases, a figure of sufficient charisma and political clout has been disatisfied, and sparked a flare for a few years-- such as Teddy Roosevelt and Perot did. The end result isn't much different than other third parties. The other exception is the Republicans themselves; the issue that rose them to prominence so polarized the country that civil war resulted. Let's hope they don't go back that far to their roots. =)
Of course, the unity of the big two is now, and has always been, an illusion. The "Dixiecrat" faction is noted in the Democrats, and while all Republicans seem to be either Religious Right or Fiscal Conservative, the majority are not both.
That forcast, while possible, is not blindingly obvious one way or another to me, yet. Unless you're one of those assuming that George's brother figured out how to rig it last time, and will figure it out again?
Caveat Pater: I've seen reports of studies that show flourescent lighting exacerbates hyperactivity and ADD. Mind you, the savings is usually worth it if the kids don't go completely disfunctional-- but you'll want to chase the kids outside as much as you possibly can. It's good for them, anyway.
Breeder reactors reduce the current waste problem as a by-product. Of course, there's the terrorism/proliferation questions of plutonium-- but that's not "waste", that's "fuel" or "weapon", take your pick.
My high school location/situation was similar-- suburbs, 4.5 miles to school -- but with different results. One difference was that there were "late run" busses. School let out at about 3, with about 40 bus routes for the mass exodus. However, there was also a trio at 4:15 (when clubs let out) and another pair at 5:15 (for sports) that ran less detailed routes. The walk from the nearest stop was a little further-- I was lucky, and only had an extra two blocks; four or five was about the longest, except for one fractal neighborhood development that they simply dropped off at the entrance to (eight blocks worst case). And for the few times the club was going to run later than that, I would call my dad at work to let him know; on his way back from work, he'd stop by the school-- and expected me waiting out front.
Another alternative I used was a bicycle. The hills weren't TOO bad in that area; I wasn't bothered by light rain, and thunderstorms were infrequent. (Winter snow was another problem; yeah, then a car would have been nice.) The cost of maintenance for a 10-speed is much lower than that of a car, no worries on insurance, and your parents are usually stuck with the bicycle fuel bills. I biked to school for a good part of the school year, and biked around town several summers. There was a nice 60 mile bike trail that had it's middle near the high school; one summer I decided to see both ends; told my parents, had an early breakfast, packed a lunch, was back for a late dinner.
Quality public transportation is a good thing, in suburbs or city; it helps sustain lower incomes, and provides options for middle class youth. Good bicycle routes help reduce pollution, and provide the motivated with a healthy transportation alternative. SanFran is a little hilly for most non-pro cyclists, but most cities and 'burbs aren't quite so bumpy. =)
The quality of life for kids in the suburbs depends on the community. In a rainy, hilly 'burb, with both parents working and having a 75 minute commute to their jobs, and a wretched school bussing problem, I can see how that would suck.
If I leave my car unlocked with the keys in the ignition, it's stupid as hell of me, and my insurance company probably wouldn't pay up, but it's still grand theft auto if a damn teenager take my Porsche for a joyride.
The files did not belong to the Republicans. Had a Democratic staffer accidentally broken the lock on his office door so that any key would open it, I am sure we can both agree he would be a moron to not notice it and get it fixed. Ditto his boss. On the other hand, it would not be ethical for a Republican staffer who noticed that to then wander in and out after hours for a few months, reading the papers from the office desk and file cabinets. Whether it is actually criminal is a question for a jury. (EG, does the system administrator have the right to "Authorize" people to access files without the permision of the House members and staff, making his careless share a de jure "authorization".)
Consider some alternate scenarios.
In both of your scenarios (a war, and a football or other sporting competition-- essentially a mock war), the two sides are out for diametrically opposing goals, seeking the explicit detriment of the other side. In the House of Representatives, the two sides are both supposedly serving the best interests of the country, albeit from the focus of their respective constituencies. All parties take a shared oath to the Constitution. Furthermore, such "Ungentlemanly" conduct almost certainly a violation of the House's own Code of Ethics for Government Service.. To quote: "Any person in Government service should: 1. Put loyalty to the highest moral principals and to country above loyalty to Government persons, party, or department." (The page explicitly states this applies to the elected officials themselves, as well.)
The debate between the Republican and the Democratic parties has always been on how these United States are best served-- on the road, not the direction. If this is no longer the case, I fear for my country.
There is a difference between taking advantage of data for which you have responsibility and data which is not your responsibility.
Agreed; the former is an abuse of explicitly imparted trust and powers; the latter is a far less egregious fault. However, that the latter is less deeply wrong does not make the latter behavior ethical.
Well, Kerry's does. His campaign says: "John Kerry is not George Bush". Which is enough to get my interest. Add in that he does indeed have a hope in hell of being elected, and that's about enough to save him from almost anything short of an indictment for Treason.
More seriously, an attack campaign on the Democrats part would be REALLY STUPID-- even if doing so might swing the 937 popular votes needed to be the difference between winning and losing this time. If Kerry looses, he goes back to the Senate-- a position much better than Edwards will be in if they win. The Republicans have been ruthless, partisan, uncompromising, and divisive. This has pissed off a LOT of moderates at them. Running a negative campaign for the presidency would cost the Democrats their higher moral ground.
The Republicans forget that strength without flexibility is brittle. Even if Kerry loses, the Republican party has the potential to shatter itself before the next election.
Were the Democrats mindbogglingly stupid? Yes. Should the Democratic sysadmin be summarily fired? Yes-- and probably even fired from a cannon into a brick wall. Was an initial discovery of this open share possibly accidentally? Absolutely. Was this a "hack" doable by the average seven-year old? Very likely.
Was the conduct of the Republicans ethical? In no way, shape, or form. Was it criminal? Possibly; a judge and/or jury needs to sort out the meaning of "authorized" in this context. Computer intrusion law may stretch to cover Mr. Miranda, but not his bosses-- although conspiracy might stretch that far.
Is this the sort of person you want representing you? Speaking for myself: no, to both the idiot Democrats and the unethical Republicans. What the Republicans should have done was made sure the Democrats knew to fix it, and then made sure the press knew that the Democrats had been stupid, and the Republicans had been "gentlemenly" about it and not taken advantage of those poor bumpkins.
I'd think that would be difficult to impossible for Windows to lock out Apple without it being accused of egregious violations of the settlement agreement. If Apple doesn't want to let people use iTunes to copy files to the hard drive in AAC format, that's stupid-- but fine. If Microsoft doesn't want to let Apple's iTunes copy files to the hard drive, or doesn't want to allow Macs to play these new DRMed CDs, that's probably Microsoft taking advantage of it's dominant monopoly position to crush competition in violation of at least one settlement agreement-- not fine. Unless by "fine" you mean "Gigabuck Federal fine, followed by summary judgement ordering corporate break-up."
I doubt Microsoft is stupid enough to try screwing Apple that egregiously and publicly; after all, Apple can be made to pay "reasonable and non-discriminatory" license fees. Linux, on the other hand, is set up to be well and truly screwed via DMCA, patents, and the RNDLAs, and the GPL.
True. However, it is more ambiguous than "million million million", as absent minded Brits might interpret it as a "million million million million".
Or would you rather they say 6.0 × 10^18?
Yes.
Most people can't imagine that.
Most people can't imagine it anyway, whether you call it "six billion billion", "6.0 x 10^18", "6 x 2^60", or "1.27 x e^43". Or understand any number higher than the number of dollars they carry in their wallet, for that matter. Anyone who needs to make any decisions in life based on this ZMS number ought to be able to understand it any of those ways (although getting help from a calculator for the last one or even two is understandable). Of course, many people manage things they can't understand. This is life.
"Patent Pending".
This isn't saying much, really: Overall, most people "generally aren't very creative", whether liberal or conservative. Of those who are... hm, why is it that the conservatives are all complaining about Hollywood having such massive liberal bias?
Not true. The rooms with movie projection equipment and music sound systems are all kept tightly under lock and key from anyone who wants to use them.