Suing Google first is illogical (even in terms of existing SCO "logic"). With upwards of 10,000 servers, at 699$ a pop, Google has an obvious incentive to fight it in court. If SCO wanted to start sueing over liscences, they would start with someone who would only owe a few thousand, and claim the result as a precident before going after a bigger firm. Even if SCO was more interested in damaging Google's reputation or profitability than actually taking it to court and winning, they would still go for a quick, easy win on a small case if only to make their complaint more believable. No matter how crazy or not SCO's actions may seem, this leaves only two possibilities.
1. SCO has no intention of actually sueing anyone else. They have a plan that involves skirting the law, but not technically crossing the line. They are sticking to that plan and not getting drawn "offsides". This plan has (or had) a good chance of making the SCO execs money, even if it ruins the company. It has (or had) a good chance that legal penalties will be avoidable or worth it from the point of view of the initiators, even if legal penalties are possibly savage on some of the followers. It may go wrong, and stick everyone involved in prison, but the odds look acceptable or better (or they looked that way when the plan began). Simply, isn't a crazy plan even if it sometimes looks so from our outsiders perspectives.
2. SCO is nuts. They are so nuts that they are going to deliberately avoid taking an easy action that would greatly improve their chances of overall success. They have no rational goals at all, just totally delusional ones. Somehow, a hundred or so people have built this totally delusional structure and are getting by with it for at least a few more months before it all comes crashing down.
This makes a great test. IF SCO actually sues Google without going after a precident first, then #2, else #1. Matters have progressed to where we can stop considering #3 (SCO is just a little bit nuts - they started with a rational plan, but when it didn't work, they hung in there way too long instead of cutting their losses). I'm betting that SCO won't just suddenly announce a suit against Google, and in time this alone will prove #1 is true.
Indirectly, it IS just like taking out a new loan to pay the collateral on the old loan. It's betting that you will win each in a series of cases so that you have both the precident to validate the next one, and the money to take that next one to court. Now why don't more investors remember that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link?
People involved in lawsuits generally send as little documentation as possible, and stick to nice legalisms that don't risk aggravating the situation, but there have been cases where a plantiff was convinced the law was totally on their side and felt free to let go with both barrels. In some of those cases, the plantiff was even right.
Here's an example from about 20 or so years ago in my state's law history that sounds like what you want: "We noted a lead story in the BLANK yesterday that reported your lawyer was just disbarred and faces criminal charges, in part for having claimed that this state had triple damage penalties incorporated in its anti-price fixing law, (when in fact it allows only simple damages), and that they applied to competitors rather than consumers. That boy just barely squeaked through law school, and everyone around here knows it, but we didn't expect him to fail so spectacularly so soon. We sincerely hope this does not compromise your plans to resolve our differences quickly in court. Oh by the way, in re. your claim for quadruple damages from something you call "collective corporate mental anguish", we can't find a quadruple penalty anywhere in state law, and we think you just made up the rest of it too. Why don't we just take you out behind the shed, kick you in the nuts and make fun of your momma, and we'll call this whole thing even. We look forward to hearing from you again."
I'ts obviously a lot of fun, IF you are 100% sure the opponent is way outside the law, and there's no way the judge is going to see different, and it won't hurt your own market position when word gets out you did it. Obviously, even IBM isn't that sure of all of the above. Pity - I bet they'ed write a great one.
Target markets are part of the illogic. I don't fit into that profile they are aiming at. The industry doesn't want to bother to find out what might sell to me. They don't want to bother to treat me as a customer. To them, I'm too old to be worth the effort. I've special ordered 4 CDs in a row and each time been told that they just didn't come in until I gave up and canceled the order. In one case, I was able to verify that the guys at the warehouse were looking in the bin, and the CD in question just wasn't there, but the distributer's computer swore that it should be, so since they "still had unsold copies", they weren't going to press more. OK, I was trying to order classical works, but I asked the clerks at two stores how often the "new, improved" computerized ordering system didn't deliver, and both times the answer boiled down to pretty durned often, unless you want something by Brittany, or In-sync, or at least Front 242.
So, it looks to me entirely like the RIAA is saying "You are not a customer. We don't want your business. Wait, why aren't you buying from us?"
Before responding, I just read every one of the posts in this thread from various who responded to anyone admitting they liked the Matrix Trilogy, and I noticed a trend that keeps showing up on this subject. Starting sentences that read like: "I didn't like it cause it sucked", "I didn't like it cause it was lame", etc. Sure some people offered valid criticisms, such as claiming that the films pretend to explore philosophical depths that they don't really want to delve into beyond the shallows. But so many of the posts start off, in effect, with a null-semantic content opening; "I didn't like it cause I didn't like it".
I'm sorry people, but anyone who starts off an opinion piece with a remark like that for an opening sentence is effectively holding up a big, flashing neon sign saying "I am ignorant and my opinion deserves to be ignored". Several of you go on to make points that show you deserve better than that. Sorry, but you're committing the equivalent of attending a fancy dress party with dog-poop on your high tops and bragging about how you're going to marry your cousin soon as she turns 15, and wondering why people can't get past the first impression. If I hadn't had some extra slack time, I would have never bothered to read past that first sentence, and I guarentee you are being marginalized by it.
Freuddot is doubtless generalizing too broadly in his post. I'm sure different people have different problems with the Matrix series ending. But he held my attention long enough to express his opinion, and I bet 95% or better of people who started his post finished it and a lot of those actually considered his opinion. My post is long, and a lot of people will drop out on the way, but I'll still bet better than half that start read the whole thing. The "It just is" posts are losing half their readers ten words into the post.
JRRT himself defended using Bombadill by first admitting that whole section was written before he realized where the story was going. After admitting that, he said that Bombadill was still essential to the book, even though it had little to do with the plot.
Some people have taken this to mean that the book is better art with B. included. I don't see it that way. I think Tolkien wanted to reference a lot of very early English lit. He wrote Boromir's death to reference the song of Roland, and drew parallels between Rohan and the Saxons and even the Geats of the Beowulf saga for similar reasons.
So Bombadill is essential, but only if you want to see a tie to the very early, heavily pagan influenced versions of English faery tales such as Thomas the Rhymer. These are influences that extend to much more modern literature (e.g. the Rip Van Winkle story). But they are not that meaningful unless you are one of the readers who is keeping score of just how many literary traditions Tolkien is alloying here. Frankly, that's probably limited to three guys who know just how many years it took for Irish monks to illuminate the book of Kells. The rest of us don't have a lifetime to devote to acquiring the necessary understanding.
Good advice, except for the "it doesn't hurt" part. NEVER tell them it didn't hurt - act like it hurt a lot, but you're not going to let it show because you don't want them to feel like they owe you anything for the great sacrefice you've made. Practice saying "Well, I could use an Ice pack, but... I'ts OK, I'll just get it myself.", and wincing as you get up. Stretch the recovery period by at least a week. (Note to female slashdot readers: Would both of you please ignore this rambling? It's just guy stuff. Thankyou.).
Here's the proof that real best of the best, leave no traces computer criminals exist.
The typical l33t haxor targets a system for goals ranging from amusement to modest financial gain, such as access to a credit card with a 7,000$ limit. The typical physical world criminal that compares to this is a bank robber, getting an average haul of about 1 to 4 thousand dollars for substantial risks of death or long term imprisonment. But we know that there are the occasional criminals who knock off an armored car or a casino or an art museum, and get not just a few thousand but 2 or 3 million dollars, or an original Rembrandt. They generally have a more skilled approach, and do more planning than their lesser criminal brethren. Their thefts sometimes go unnoticed for substantial time, (i.e. until an art expert verifys that the Rembrandt now in the museum is a copy). Their thefts are often not reported to the public once detected.
Are there computer targets worth this kind of money? Yes? Then there are computer oriented criminals to match.
Authoritative sources aren't the only ones that tend to stay unchanged. Many of the real fanatic sites have copious dis-information, but the people who run them are eager to preserve their "TRUTH" even at enormous costs. Holocaust deniers, Kennedy assassination conspiracy buffs, and the whole tin-foil hat crowd run some of the most long lived web sites around. The ephemeral nature of most sites gives these a spurious authority - the original site may well outlast its critics and rebuttals.
The full article uses the phrase "a specific pattern". The original/. poster says "patterns" plural. The actual paper covers precision adjustment and the methods and instumentation discussed in it show that there are quite a few variations, so the poster's capsule accout actually corrected an oversimplification in the popular press. Slashdot just committed accurate news reporting. What you want to bet that'll happen again?
This is one of those cases where highly trained professionals with university grade equipment can precisely tune a gadget, but the big question is will it scale? As cheaply as most microwave ovens are made, can the manfacturers afford to duplicate this method, or will we see a bunch of ovens being advertised as "low-interference", that are really no better than the old ones?
Strong colors apply to frogs and sometimes lizards, but just think how bright some (non-poisonous) tropical fish are. Then there's lantern fish, They attract prey with a glowing lure that mimics a small fish. I wouldn't want to see these glowing fish breed back into the wild population for the same reason you give, but there's a good chance it would just get them all eaten faster instead of protecting them.
We tend to ignore borderline successes, and that's probably a good thing.
Lions can be crossed with Tigers. Tygons are often, but not always infertile. But, they are infertile often enough that the cross will probably always die out with a few generations. Tygons also don't really seem to fit an ecological niche, so (again probably) they would die out from there not being a good niche for a cat of intermediate size, with the mix of hunting habits, adaptations for veldt and jungle, and nocturnal/diurnal traits.
No one has really tried to establish a sizeable population of Tygons and prove exaustively that they wouldn't do well without constant meddeling by humans to keep that population stable. Instead, we see enough separate reasons to think so that we don't think it needs a very costly set of experiments.
Now for the kicker. Not just Tygons, but Lion/Leopard, Leopard/Panther and Lion/Panther crosses have been possible (or at least claimed by zoos). These are generally reputed to be sterile in the next generation, but happen so rarely that hasnt been well tested. At the other end of the cat size scale, domestic cats can cross with bobcats (usually fertile), Bobcats with Canadian Lynx, and cervals with most other 30 lb. felines. Ergo, tigers and house cats are still the same species if you are willing to ignore that these crosses are mostly flaky, non-survival types. Since that sort of approach makes Taxonomy largely useless, "viable" is best restricted to mean both multi-generational and under natural conditions.
This may be a variant on suicide by cops. Do so much obviously stupid stuff that they put you away for-effectively-ever, and you can't give in to those sick urges again. Maybe he'll insist on being his own lawyer too.
... It just has to be bigger than a traffic offense.
They charged him immediately with the crimes they could quickly document, like theft of communications, because that way they could hold him until they could gather the evidence for the other charges.
It takes time to go through the forensics process on a laptop's HD while complying with legal rules. For example, before you start paging through images and saying, that one looks underage, you stop looking for more at the first sign of evidence and back up the whole drive (you do, if you're the police, that is). In part this is a step in preserving the chain of evidence. It's also in case the perp has set up some sort of anti-tamper or drive wiping software. You also get an assistant DA or better present for legal advice on what to do next, and log every step of the process. At some point, you may want to lift prints off of the laptop for physical evidence. You may discover evidence in process that requires you notify the FBI (They handle most kidnappings, which often includes missing and exploited children cases).
While you are doing all that, the perp can probably post bail and walk, or may not have to post bail if all you have charged him with is a traffic offense such as going the wrong way on a one way street.
A public indecency charge would probably work, but if you couldn't tell he was naked until you stopped him, might be argueable. And, it never hurts to have a second charge, just in case there's something wrong with the first
The theft of communications law seems clearly violated in this case, and it's sufficient grounds to hold him for long enough to take real care in gathering the evidence for the more serious crimes. If it doesn't stick in the end, you haven't lost much, as the judge will probably make the child porn charges run consecutively.
There's no need for private citizens to trace this chain of claims. Since this is a criminal case, and one involving a particularly dispicable act and heavy sentences, the defendant deserves a defense that will verify or disprove this claim by the chief witness against him. Lets hope his lawyer files a motion to that effect:
"Your honor, my client has a fundamental right to confront his accuser. If the state is reluctant to spend the necessary funds to trace some of these e-mails to their true sources, they will be handycapping my defense of my client irrepairably, and risking perjury in the courtroom."
I take back everything I said about Booker being crazy - the way this is going to play to a jury, the spammers can't afford to take the stand, or they'll never get back to their homes in the bahamas.
You have the letter of the law correct (IANAL). However, the government usually won't prosecute a case if the victim is uncooperative enough, and if they continue, juries have a habit of not believing the testimony once a few "aledged victims" lie. take the fifth, or admit to acts either criminal or legal but sufficiently deplorable. Overall, the public may be glad if this case goes forward, but the spammers may regret they ever filed the complaint, and the plantiff may get a slap on the wrist or even a case dropped in mid-process. It's as likely to send the wrong message to the next short tempered guy as to be good precident. Frankly, getting into a business that has illegal aspects should have its downside, and this may be it.
I probably should just leave it at that, but here's the original for those of you who might like it:
Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee.
Sink all coffins and all hearses to one common pool! and since neither can be mine, let me then tow to pieces, while still chasing thee, though tied to thee, thou damned whale! Thus, I give up the spear!
-Cpt. Ahab
1. WW1 was driven largely by monarchy. The guy ruleing Germany at that time was called the Kaiser. Bad choices in dealing with defeated Germany screwed up their economy so badly that people got very desperate, and that's how Hitler got into power. Good choices after WW2 kept the cycle from happening again. WW2 was a clear struggle agaisnt a monstrous evil, at least in retrospect, but WW1 was cloudier.
2. Without the civil war, the slaves would not have been freed (at least as quickly). If Lincoln hadn't swung the north towards ths goal in mid war, they might still have not been freed when they were, as the civil war started over quite a few issues, and the north was initially not willing to commit to ending slavery immediately (to be fair, many people, including some in the south, were at least in favor of ending it gradually.) Was it worth it in the end? Hell yes, if we saved only 20 years on abolition that's 20 years of incredible suffering that got at least a bit better, but it was a sad way to get there, and the government now counts all who fell on both sides as american dead.
3. Without the cold war, we would be trying to make an economy even more screwed up than the one we have work. Western Europe would have about the same standard of living as 1970's Bosnia. Centralized planning would still be working as well as usual - not very - over a larger part of the globe, perhaps the whole globe.
4. Without our Revolutionary war, the poor brits would probably still have a monarchy with real power, instead of just pomp and circumstance. I think we both won on that one. We also got a valiant attempt to get government off of the average person's back, one that hasn't wholly failed yet.
War's opposite truly is peace. But, peace is not dictators treating millions of their citizens as rightless drones. It isn't societies deciding their predominant race or creed is superior to all others and acting to supress or destroy them. It isn't living half slave and half free. All those things are is wars that few call wars. Peace is only possible with justice.
Let's applaud those people who have ended one of these veiled wars without further loss of life, and persuaded all involved to create real peace, but let's remember, if that method worked all the time, we would already have universal peace. Open war is never the first option of a rational person, but it is sometimes the only response that remains.
Ben Johnson had it backwards - Violence is the _first_ resort of the incompetent, but the last resort of the competent in the face of the intolerable.
Not only is Al Quida not the only terrorist group, but forign terrorists aren't the only terrorist category. How many domestic terrorist groups would think obliterating records in FBI or NSA computers was a double win? It damages the political system in an area of special concern, and it may even destroy records that include evidence against the group's operatives, thus helping keep them free to continue.
The 'anarchist' contingent of those protesting against glabalization and world trade agreements could also include a number of people eager to use EM attacks.
I'd expect islamic terrorists to be the last to use this method though, in large part because no Palestinian group has been able to mobilize passive resistance against israeli security. They either haven't tried, or haven't succeeded at a 'go limp and let the israelis look like bullies' type sit in. This suggests militants in the region just aren't thinking by that conventional doctrine, or the ones that are can't recruit effectively or get followers who will follow that order, because of it.
Ransom Love may have told a truth or two here. Freqently people have attributed the seeming irrationality of SCO to McBride and others being on Crack. However, what better explains their actions than that this lawsuit has begun as SCO's one last chance at "payback" for old grudges? Maybe it's a classic tragedy, with McBride ending up saying "For Hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee" just before the great blue whale rolls over on him.
If this becomes a real trend, people will probably start adding headphone splitters so others can jack in easier. Adding one will become an open invitation. Then a backlash against Podmiscuity will develop...
This is something that can be criticised either way. If the AG goes after a bunch of petty criminals, and it costs more to prosecute them than the average take, its a publicity stunt. If his office focuses on crimes with high enough consequences to be cost effective, well that $150,000 per count for copyright violation makes that one of the laws worth enforcing. As long as some rather trivial offenses have such big penalties, challenging these actions on cost effectiveness grounds is not even approximately challenging them on ethical grounds. If you let "them" turn it into an economic arguement, the system is rigged against you. It can give you what you said you wanted and still not prosecute violent crime, big corporate fraud, or people who don't maintain their furnaces when they rent to little old ladies.
Slashdot Mirror
Suing Google first is illogical (even in terms of existing SCO "logic"). With upwards of 10,000 servers, at 699$ a pop, Google has an obvious incentive to fight it in court. If SCO wanted to start sueing over liscences, they would start with someone who would only owe a few thousand, and claim the result as a precident before going after a bigger firm. Even if SCO was more interested in damaging Google's reputation or profitability than actually taking it to court and winning, they would still go for a quick, easy win on a small case if only to make their complaint more believable. No matter how crazy or not SCO's actions may seem, this leaves only two possibilities.
1. SCO has no intention of actually sueing anyone else. They have a plan that involves skirting the law, but not technically crossing the line. They are sticking to that plan and not getting drawn "offsides". This plan has (or had) a good chance of making the SCO execs money, even if it ruins the company. It has (or had) a good chance that legal penalties will be avoidable or worth it from the point of view of the initiators, even if legal penalties are possibly savage on some of the followers. It may go wrong, and stick everyone involved in prison, but the odds look acceptable or better (or they looked that way when the plan began). Simply, isn't a crazy plan even if it sometimes looks so from our outsiders perspectives.
2. SCO is nuts. They are so nuts that they are going to deliberately avoid taking an easy action that would greatly improve their chances of overall success. They have no rational goals at all, just totally delusional ones. Somehow, a hundred or so people have built this totally delusional structure and are getting by with it for at least a few more months before it all comes crashing down.
This makes a great test. IF SCO actually sues Google without going after a precident first, then #2, else #1. Matters have progressed to where we can stop considering #3 (SCO is just a little bit nuts - they started with a rational plan, but when it didn't work, they hung in there way too long instead of cutting their losses). I'm betting that SCO won't just suddenly announce a suit against Google, and in time this alone will prove #1 is true.
Indirectly, it IS just like taking out a new loan to pay the collateral on the old loan. It's betting that you will win each in a series of cases so that you have both the precident to validate the next one, and the money to take that next one to court. Now why don't more investors remember that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link?
People involved in lawsuits generally send as little documentation as possible, and stick to nice legalisms that don't risk aggravating the situation, but there have been cases where a plantiff was convinced the law was totally on their side and felt free to let go with both barrels. In some of those cases, the plantiff was even right.
Here's an example from about 20 or so years ago in my state's law history that sounds like what you want: "We noted a lead story in the BLANK yesterday that reported your lawyer was just disbarred and faces criminal charges, in part for having claimed that this state had triple damage penalties incorporated in its anti-price fixing law, (when in fact it allows only simple damages), and that they applied to competitors rather than consumers. That boy just barely squeaked through law school, and everyone around here knows it, but we didn't expect him to fail so spectacularly so soon. We sincerely hope this does not compromise your plans to resolve our differences quickly in court. Oh by the way, in re. your claim for quadruple damages from something you call "collective corporate mental anguish", we can't find a quadruple penalty anywhere in state law, and we think you just made up the rest of it too. Why don't we just take you out behind the shed, kick you in the nuts and make fun of your momma, and we'll call this whole thing even. We look forward to hearing from you again."
I'ts obviously a lot of fun, IF you are 100% sure the opponent is way outside the law, and there's no way the judge is going to see different, and it won't hurt your own market position when word gets out you did it. Obviously, even IBM isn't that sure of all of the above. Pity - I bet they'ed write a great one.
Target markets are part of the illogic. I don't fit into that profile they are aiming at. The industry doesn't want to bother to find out what might sell to me. They don't want to bother to treat me as a customer. To them, I'm too old to be worth the effort. I've special ordered 4 CDs in a row and each time been told that they just didn't come in until I gave up and canceled the order. In one case, I was able to verify that the guys at the warehouse were looking in the bin, and the CD in question just wasn't there, but the distributer's computer swore that it should be, so since they "still had unsold copies", they weren't going to press more. OK, I was trying to order classical works, but I asked the clerks at two stores how often the "new, improved" computerized ordering system didn't deliver, and both times the answer boiled down to pretty durned often, unless you want something by Brittany, or In-sync, or at least Front 242. So, it looks to me entirely like the RIAA is saying "You are not a customer. We don't want your business. Wait, why aren't you buying from us?"
Before responding, I just read every one of the posts in this thread from various who responded to anyone admitting they liked the Matrix Trilogy, and I noticed a trend that keeps showing up on this subject. Starting sentences that read like: "I didn't like it cause it sucked", "I didn't like it cause it was lame", etc. Sure some people offered valid criticisms, such as claiming that the films pretend to explore philosophical depths that they don't really want to delve into beyond the shallows. But so many of the posts start off, in effect, with a null-semantic content opening; "I didn't like it cause I didn't like it".
I'm sorry people, but anyone who starts off an opinion piece with a remark like that for an opening sentence is effectively holding up a big, flashing neon sign saying "I am ignorant and my opinion deserves to be ignored". Several of you go on to make points that show you deserve better than that. Sorry, but you're committing the equivalent of attending a fancy dress party with dog-poop on your high tops and bragging about how you're going to marry your cousin soon as she turns 15, and wondering why people can't get past the first impression. If I hadn't had some extra slack time, I would have never bothered to read past that first sentence, and I guarentee you are being marginalized by it.
Freuddot is doubtless generalizing too broadly in his post. I'm sure different people have different problems with the Matrix series ending. But he held my attention long enough to express his opinion, and I bet 95% or better of people who started his post finished it and a lot of those actually considered his opinion. My post is long, and a lot of people will drop out on the way, but I'll still bet better than half that start read the whole thing. The "It just is" posts are losing half their readers ten words into the post.
JRRT himself defended using Bombadill by first admitting that whole section was written before he realized where the story was going. After admitting that, he said that Bombadill was still essential to the book, even though it had little to do with the plot.
Some people have taken this to mean that the book is better art with B. included. I don't see it that way. I think Tolkien wanted to reference a lot of very early English lit. He wrote Boromir's death to reference the song of Roland, and drew parallels between Rohan and the Saxons and even the Geats of the Beowulf saga for similar reasons.
So Bombadill is essential, but only if you want to see a tie to the very early, heavily pagan influenced versions of English faery tales such as Thomas the Rhymer. These are influences that extend to much more modern literature (e.g. the Rip Van Winkle story). But they are not that meaningful unless you are one of the readers who is keeping score of just how many literary traditions Tolkien is alloying here. Frankly, that's probably limited to three guys who know just how many years it took for Irish monks to illuminate the book of Kells. The rest of us don't have a lifetime to devote to acquiring the necessary understanding.
Good advice, except for the "it doesn't hurt" part. NEVER tell them it didn't hurt - act like it hurt a lot, but you're not going to let it show because you don't want them to feel like they owe you anything for the great sacrefice you've made. Practice saying "Well, I could use an Ice pack, but... I'ts OK, I'll just get it myself.", and wincing as you get up. Stretch the recovery period by at least a week. (Note to female slashdot readers: Would both of you please ignore this rambling? It's just guy stuff. Thankyou.).
Here's the proof that real best of the best, leave no traces computer criminals exist.
The typical l33t haxor targets a system for goals ranging from amusement to modest financial gain, such as access to a credit card with a 7,000$ limit. The typical physical world criminal that compares to this is a bank robber, getting an average haul of about 1 to 4 thousand dollars for substantial risks of death or long term imprisonment.
But we know that there are the occasional criminals who knock off an armored car or a casino or an art museum, and get not just a few thousand but 2 or 3 million dollars, or an original Rembrandt. They generally have a more skilled approach, and do more planning than their lesser criminal brethren. Their thefts sometimes go unnoticed for substantial time, (i.e. until an art expert verifys that the Rembrandt now in the museum is a copy). Their thefts are often not reported to the public once detected.
Are there computer targets worth this kind of money? Yes? Then there are computer oriented criminals to match.
Authoritative sources aren't the only ones that tend to stay unchanged. Many of the real fanatic sites have copious dis-information, but the people who run them are eager to preserve their "TRUTH" even at enormous costs. Holocaust deniers, Kennedy assassination conspiracy buffs, and the whole tin-foil hat crowd run some of the most long lived web sites around. The ephemeral nature of most sites gives these a spurious authority - the original site may well outlast its critics and rebuttals.
The full article uses the phrase "a specific pattern". The original /. poster says "patterns" plural. The actual paper covers precision adjustment and the methods and instumentation discussed in it show that there are quite a few variations, so the poster's capsule accout actually corrected an oversimplification in the popular press. Slashdot just committed accurate news reporting. What you want to bet that'll happen again?
This is one of those cases where highly trained professionals with university grade equipment can precisely tune a gadget, but the big question is will it scale? As cheaply as most microwave ovens are made, can the manfacturers afford to duplicate this method, or will we see a bunch of ovens being advertised as "low-interference", that are really no better than the old ones?
Strong colors apply to frogs and sometimes lizards, but just think how bright some (non-poisonous) tropical fish are. Then there's lantern fish, They attract prey with a glowing lure that mimics a small fish. I wouldn't want to see these glowing fish breed back into the wild population for the same reason you give, but there's a good chance it would just get them all eaten faster instead of protecting them.
We tend to ignore borderline successes, and that's probably a good thing.
Lions can be crossed with Tigers. Tygons are often, but not always infertile. But, they are infertile often enough that the cross will probably always die out with a few generations. Tygons also don't really seem to fit an ecological niche, so (again probably) they would die out from there not being a good niche for a cat of intermediate size, with the mix of hunting habits, adaptations for veldt and jungle, and nocturnal/diurnal traits.
No one has really tried to establish a sizeable population of Tygons and prove exaustively that they wouldn't do well without constant meddeling by humans to keep that population stable. Instead, we see enough separate reasons to think so that we don't think it needs a very costly set of experiments.
Now for the kicker. Not just Tygons, but Lion/Leopard, Leopard/Panther and Lion/Panther crosses have been possible (or at least claimed by zoos). These are generally reputed to be sterile in the next generation, but happen so rarely that hasnt been well tested. At the other end of the cat size scale, domestic cats can cross with bobcats (usually fertile), Bobcats with Canadian Lynx, and cervals with most other 30 lb. felines. Ergo, tigers and house cats are still the same species if you are willing to ignore that these crosses are mostly flaky, non-survival types. Since that sort of approach makes Taxonomy largely useless, "viable" is best restricted to mean both multi-generational and under natural conditions.
This may be a variant on suicide by cops. Do so much obviously stupid stuff that they put you away for-effectively-ever, and you can't give in to those sick urges again. Maybe he'll insist on being his own lawyer too.
... It just has to be bigger than a traffic offense.
They charged him immediately with the crimes they could quickly document, like theft of communications, because that way they could hold him until they could gather the evidence for the other charges.
It takes time to go through the forensics process on a laptop's HD while complying with legal rules. For example, before you start paging through images and saying, that one looks underage, you stop looking for more at the first sign of evidence and back up the whole drive (you do, if you're the police, that is). In part this is a step in preserving the chain of evidence. It's also in case the perp has set up some sort of anti-tamper or drive wiping software. You also get an assistant DA or better present for legal advice on what to do next, and log every step of the process. At some point, you may want to lift prints off of the laptop for physical evidence. You may discover evidence in process that requires you notify the FBI (They handle most kidnappings, which often includes missing and exploited children cases).
While you are doing all that, the perp can probably post bail and walk, or may not have to post bail if all you have charged him with is a traffic offense such as going the wrong way on a one way street.
A public indecency charge would probably work, but if you couldn't tell he was naked until you stopped him, might be argueable. And, it never hurts to have a second charge, just in case there's something wrong with the first
The theft of communications law seems clearly violated in this case, and it's sufficient grounds to hold him for long enough to take real care in gathering the evidence for the more serious crimes. If it doesn't stick in the end, you haven't lost much, as the judge will probably make the child porn charges run consecutively.
There's no need for private citizens to trace this chain of claims. Since this is a criminal case, and one involving a particularly dispicable act and heavy sentences, the defendant deserves a defense that will verify or disprove this claim by the chief witness against him. Lets hope his lawyer files a motion to that effect:
"Your honor, my client has a fundamental right to confront his accuser. If the state is reluctant to spend the necessary funds to trace some of these e-mails to their true sources, they will be handycapping my defense of my client irrepairably, and risking perjury in the courtroom."
I take back everything I said about Booker being crazy - the way this is going to play to a jury, the spammers can't afford to take the stand, or they'll never get back to their homes in the bahamas.
You have the letter of the law correct (IANAL).
However, the government usually won't prosecute a case if the victim is uncooperative enough, and if they continue, juries have a habit of not believing the testimony once a few "aledged victims" lie. take the fifth, or admit to acts either criminal or legal but sufficiently deplorable. Overall, the public may be glad if this case goes forward, but the spammers may regret they ever filed the complaint, and the plantiff may get a slap on the wrist or even a case dropped in mid-process. It's as likely to send the wrong message to the next short tempered guy as to be good precident. Frankly, getting into a business that has illegal aspects should have its downside, and this may be it.
I probably should just leave it at that, but here's the original for those of you who might like it:
Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee.
Sink all coffins and all hearses to one common pool! and since neither can be mine, let me then tow to pieces, while still chasing thee, though tied to thee, thou damned whale! Thus, I give up the spear!
-Cpt. Ahab
Melville
1. WW1 was driven largely by monarchy. The guy ruleing Germany at that time was called the Kaiser. Bad choices in dealing with defeated Germany screwed up their economy so badly that people got very desperate, and that's how Hitler got into power. Good choices after WW2 kept the cycle from happening again. WW2 was a clear struggle agaisnt a monstrous evil, at least in retrospect, but WW1 was cloudier. 2. Without the civil war, the slaves would not have been freed (at least as quickly). If Lincoln hadn't swung the north towards ths goal in mid war, they might still have not been freed when they were, as the civil war started over quite a few issues, and the north was initially not willing to commit to ending slavery immediately (to be fair, many people, including some in the south, were at least in favor of ending it gradually.) Was it worth it in the end? Hell yes, if we saved only 20 years on abolition that's 20 years of incredible suffering that got at least a bit better, but it was a sad way to get there, and the government now counts all who fell on both sides as american dead. 3. Without the cold war, we would be trying to make an economy even more screwed up than the one we have work. Western Europe would have about the same standard of living as 1970's Bosnia. Centralized planning would still be working as well as usual - not very - over a larger part of the globe, perhaps the whole globe. 4. Without our Revolutionary war, the poor brits would probably still have a monarchy with real power, instead of just pomp and circumstance. I think we both won on that one. We also got a valiant attempt to get government off of the average person's back, one that hasn't wholly failed yet.
War's opposite truly is peace. But, peace is not dictators treating millions of their citizens as rightless drones. It isn't societies deciding their predominant race or creed is superior to all others and acting to supress or destroy them. It isn't living half slave and half free. All those things are is wars that few call wars. Peace is only possible with justice.
Let's applaud those people who have ended one of these veiled wars without further loss of life, and persuaded all involved to create real peace, but let's remember, if that method worked all the time, we would already have universal peace. Open war is never the first option of a rational person, but it is sometimes the only response that remains.
Ben Johnson had it backwards - Violence is the _first_ resort of the incompetent, but the last resort of the competent in the face of the intolerable.
Not only is Al Quida not the only terrorist group, but forign terrorists aren't the only terrorist category. How many domestic terrorist groups would think obliterating records in FBI or NSA computers was a double win? It damages the political system in an area of special concern, and it may even destroy records that include evidence against the group's operatives, thus helping keep them free to continue.
The 'anarchist' contingent of those protesting against glabalization and world trade agreements could also include a number of people eager to use EM attacks.
I'd expect islamic terrorists to be the last to use this method though, in large part because no Palestinian group has been able to mobilize passive resistance against israeli security. They either haven't tried, or haven't succeeded at a 'go limp and let the israelis look like bullies' type sit in. This suggests militants in the region just aren't thinking by that conventional doctrine, or the ones that are can't recruit effectively or get followers who will follow that order, because of it.
Ransom Love may have told a truth or two here. Freqently people have attributed the seeming irrationality of SCO to McBride and others being on Crack. However, what better explains their actions than that this lawsuit has begun as SCO's one last chance at "payback" for old grudges? Maybe it's a classic tragedy, with McBride ending up saying "For Hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee" just before the great blue whale rolls over on him.
If this becomes a real trend, people will probably start adding headphone splitters so others can jack in easier. Adding one will become an open invitation. Then a backlash against Podmiscuity will develop...
This is something that can be criticised either way. If the AG goes after a bunch of petty criminals, and it costs more to prosecute them than the average take, its a publicity stunt. If his office focuses on crimes with high enough consequences to be cost effective, well that $150,000 per count for copyright violation makes that one of the laws worth enforcing. As long as some rather trivial offenses have such big penalties, challenging these actions on cost effectiveness grounds is not even approximately challenging them on ethical grounds. If you let "them" turn it into an economic arguement, the system is rigged against you. It can give you what you said you wanted and still not prosecute violent crime, big corporate fraud, or people who don't maintain their furnaces when they rent to little old ladies.