Methinks the plaintiff took the wrong approach. Suing the imposter for something like wire fraud would seemingly make more sense; or if Prodigy had failed to act by removing the accounts involved upon showing that t'was an imposter, for negligence.
Unless the plaintiff, however, could claim that Prodigy could decide when the accounts were applied for that this was the intent... I would suppose that Prodigy requires addresses and credit card numbers, which should have permitted some cross-checking. At the very least, one person registering several accounts should set off flags, regardless of the contents of messages. When these names match a non-relation, this again should set off more flags, before a single message is posted. Perhaps negligence there...
...'bout time something like this was done, although apparently it's only mounted on the front grill (perhaps you're backing up during a parallel park, and don't want to run over a neighbor's cat... no coverage there).
If they could combine this with a ring of active sonar sensors, for revealing cold-but-still-there objects like fallen trees and telephone polls, it'd be even better.
Anybody know if it'd be more practical to put it all in a pair of goggles plugged into the dash? Dunno the resolution that we can get thusly 'round now, and there'd be the issue that you now also need to feed in normal video so folks can still read the signs...
There is peaceful protest, such as putting up signs and fliers in a public place without obstructing or otherwise harrassing anybody. Flooding a representative's mailbox with well-reasoned letters is another approach. Blocking traffic and dancing in the streets veers a bit away from speech; now, these folks are simply sending the message that they've failed to come up with a coherent, cogent means of expression. Vandalism and looting are no longer "peaceful protest". This is along the lines as the strange way of celebrating, say, a championship game by overturning cars and starting fires, or expressing support for a football/soccer team by punching the fans of others.
* In this case, the WTO has lately sided *against* the wealthy nations by rejecting discussions of labor laws. It's distinctly not in the tax-base interests of governments to have much stronger labor laws than others, except in industries where it does not matter because one needs the infrastructure and/or highly-trained people who aren't elsewhwere.
Re:Revolution-proofing the elites
on
WTO + SDMI = NWO
·
· Score: 1
Hrrrrrrrrm. So, according to your labelling of the wealthy and the governmental folks as "elites", Bill Gates and Bill Clinton should be mind-controlling just about everybody.
Somehow, neither seems to be doing a good job at that lately, eh?
You're missing something about these folks -- they *need* the sanction of the supposedly non-powerful middle class. Take Gates, for instance; what power he has comes from money. That money comes from his company. His company depends on customers...
Politicians are even more vulnerable to discontent; recall, impeachment and refusal to re-elect all come to mind, not to mention the constant ridicule by Leno...
There are more middle-class folks, and they have a LOT of power. Witness what happened to Mondale when he proposed raising taxes during the election.
Keep in mind that it's also possible to kill via trade embargos and other interfering with logistics. In the case of intra-EU disputes over everything from beef to the true meaning of chocolate (mmmmmmmm), that's not the case... but it can be done.
Physical evidence usually leaves a trail. For instance, it would be dodgy for police to visit my apartment, plant a stolen handgun, and then claim that I'd used it to rob a store; they would need to coerce witnesses who could place me there, they may need to forge recordings from security cameras, and they would need to pick a time where I had no strong alibi. It'd be even more difficult to claim that I discharged a firearm, due to the powder traces that normally leaves on the shooter.
On the other hand, it would not be that difficult -- given time -- to, say, install a variety of cracking tools and documents, and reams of stolen information in my personal computer.
There are already my prints on the keyboard, and obviously I use it; thus, it would be difficult to prove that I did *not* install that, barring extenuating circumstances like the fact that my connection is neither fast nor always-on -- and thus they would have to take care to choose a time when I *was* dialed in, and to not go overboard with the data that I supposedly downloaded. If they set it up to allow incoming connections, they wouldn't even necessarily have to prove that I was in my apartment, since they could argue that I accessed it remotely.
* Hiding traces of surveillance, and * Anything that's "reasonably incidental"
Dunno 'bout the judges down there, but "reasonably incidental" o'er here usually wouldn't be interpreted as "massive falsification of evidence"; more like the disruption caused by the electronic B&E method itself.
Might not the Indonesians be a tad annoyed with y'all? Last I checked, the US was being rather reluctant to be involved on-site, and t'was the Aussies who had troops there despite our reluctance...
Hmm. So, aside from the electronic front, what's the general gist of Australian policy re: law enforcement? Do y'all have such things as no-knock warrants, a history of government infiltrators/agent provocateurs in even remotely potentially subversive organizations, leaders whose operatives break into the files of psychiatrists who treat their enemies...
...or is your government more respectful of privacy when it does not involve a computer?
Re:Dumb Laws of Pennsylvania
on
Dumb Laws
·
· Score: 1
Heh.
Think they also missed Pittsburgh's ordinance barring giving alcohol or cigarettes to squirrels in city parks...
Yeah, I can really see a grey squirrel relaxing at the end of a long day gathering nuts, with a Bud and a pack of Marlboros.;-)
Socialism. Again, it's no more Communist than, say, those who worship Minerva as God can claim themselves to be Christian (which has also been tried...).
Chinese communism stemmed out of nationalism and disgust with the corrupt ruling regime; it's no coincidence that Lenin and Mao both strengthened their followings during wartime suffering. It was never a worker's revolution; heck, China was not heavily industrialized beforehand -- hence the 5 Year Plans in an attempt to build up heavy industry.
Government ownership by the few Party members -- that's Socialism. Communism would require vast party membership encompassing the entire proletariat, with shared production -- and that has never been done on even the scale of Soviet Russia, let alone the PRC.
Changing is rehabilitation; punishment includes vengeance and deterrence, as well.
The judicial system basically is an immune system; there are folks who may be reformable, but there are those who are definitely, completely, utterly, beyond redemption -- and some of these will even admit it and *ask* for capital punishment. It is unrealistic to believe that all criminals can be changed for the better... and at that point, it is more reasonable to eliminate the threat, permanently.
A traditional example is espionage by an illegal. In ideological or mercenary cases, in contrast to those resulting from blackmail or perhaps false-flag duplicity and manipulation, a trusted individual has made a conscious decision to betray his people. Not only that, but he must maintain this deception, willingly; and instead work against those who would help him -- sometimes for periods of decades. Ideological agents in particular often fail to be repentant in the slightest...
The extremity of the punishment is noted. That is why, unlike numerous other nations, the US system of justice has a large number of safeguards. In particular, the system is relatively open to the public for observation, and invites random people to serve as jurors. To corrupt the entire system of judges, jurors and police is difficult; there are simply far too many. In addition, appeals are permissible, to the point where prisoners on death row have appealed on the grounds that they have been on death row for over a decade -- largely because of their appeals.
Has it ever gone wrong? Yes, and it will again; but in exchange, the most unrepentant and incorrigible are prevented from repeating their crimes on others; given that there ARE such people, and will be, some price *will* be paid -- death penalty or no. The main question is by whom.
And don't bother using loaded arguments like "barbaric". Emotion has no place in rational discussions. Using the word "wrong" would make you seem more reasonable.
Erm, they probably still do -- in numbers, and in ruthlessness. They normally don't allow one to, say, appeal for 10+ years if they decide to shoot you; and celebrity fan appeals don't mean squat -- as they shouldn't. For instance, according to the "Death Penalty Information Center", an anti-DP site, the total number of executions in the US from 1976 to 1998 reached 500. That's 22 *years*. See their report for details... that's a vastly lower per-capita rate.
Remember that this is a country which essentially celebrated the UN Anti-Drug Day by executing narcotics traffickers. Life has a significantly lower value there.
Only in name, bucko -- no more than the United States is a democracy. Go read some Communist literature, and then compare and contrast.
They are not Communist, and never have been even remotely close to achieving it. It would be more accurate to label them as Totalitarian Socialists, that are (slowly) privatizing to be simply Totalitarians.
I'm pretty sure that $87K is a substantial amount over there considering that their cost of living is likely rather low.
If, say, somebody stole everything out of your bank accounts and online investments, it might be pretty hard to pay the rent, utilities, gambling debts to the Gambinos... that can lead to some pretty physical pain.
Maybe not. If you're tired of being good; the Xmas music had really been getting to you to the point that you want to take aim at Rudolph; or the thought of mobs in malls just makes you want to scream...
Some anti-WTO people put up signs in an academic quad here. It would have helped their credibility rise above "absolutely none" if they had at least realized that the US isn't a democracy, never was, and never was meant to be; it's a representative republic partly to avoid the tyranny of the masses -- as they'd know this if they read the writings of the Founding Fathers and knew anything about government or history...
As long as protesters are violating the laws by blocking streets, it would be remarkably unclued for the militia to join in.
They're already portrayed, often enough, as potentially violent gun loonies. They don't need to simultaneously:
* join in illegally blocking traffic, helping protesters while hampering everybody else * escalate an already violent confrontation involving rioters, peaceful protesters, city cops, and Guardsmen * do this on national television
and thus give, say, an excuse for a *serious* crackdown. Instead, certain militias have actually been working *with* law enforcement in various cases 'round the nation, partly to help convince them that they're not opposed to *all* government.
Slashdot Mirror
How is this a privacy issue? This was regarding liability for defamation of character.
Methinks the plaintiff took the wrong approach. Suing the imposter for something like wire fraud would seemingly make more sense; or if Prodigy had failed to act by removing the accounts involved upon showing that t'was an imposter, for negligence.
Unless the plaintiff, however, could claim that Prodigy could decide when the accounts were applied for that this was the intent... I would suppose that Prodigy requires addresses and credit card numbers, which should have permitted some cross-checking. At the very least, one person registering several accounts should set off flags, regardless of the contents of messages. When these names match a non-relation, this again should set off more flags, before a single message is posted. Perhaps negligence there...
...target-acquisition and designation sights, target range and velocity, fire-control radar, missile lock indicator...
...oh, wait, that's BMW.
I'd hate to see Mr. Bond's auto-insurance premiums.
...'bout time something like this was done, although apparently it's only mounted on the front grill (perhaps you're backing up during a parallel park, and don't want to run over a neighbor's cat... no coverage there).
If they could combine this with a ring of active sonar sensors, for revealing cold-but-still-there objects like fallen trees and telephone polls, it'd be even better.
Anybody know if it'd be more practical to put it all in a pair of goggles plugged into the dash? Dunno the resolution that we can get thusly 'round now, and there'd be the issue that you now also need to feed in normal video so folks can still read the signs...
* Define speech.
There is peaceful protest, such as putting up signs and fliers in a public place without obstructing or otherwise harrassing anybody. Flooding a representative's mailbox with well-reasoned letters is another approach.
Blocking traffic and dancing in the streets veers a bit away from speech; now, these folks are simply sending the message that they've failed to come up with a coherent, cogent means of expression.
Vandalism and looting are no longer "peaceful protest". This is along the lines as the strange way of celebrating, say, a championship game by overturning cars and starting fires, or expressing support for a football/soccer team by punching the fans of others.
* In this case, the WTO has lately sided *against* the wealthy nations by rejecting discussions of labor laws. It's distinctly not in the tax-base interests of governments to have much stronger labor laws than others, except in industries where it does not matter because one needs the infrastructure and/or highly-trained people who aren't elsewhwere.
Hrrrrrrrrm. So, according to your labelling of the wealthy and the governmental folks as "elites", Bill Gates and Bill Clinton should be mind-controlling just about everybody.
Somehow, neither seems to be doing a good job at that lately, eh?
You're missing something about these folks -- they *need* the sanction of the supposedly non-powerful middle class. Take Gates, for instance; what power he has comes from money. That money comes from his company. His company depends on customers...
Politicians are even more vulnerable to discontent; recall, impeachment and refusal to re-elect all come to mind, not to mention the constant ridicule by Leno...
There are more middle-class folks, and they have a LOT of power. Witness what happened to Mondale when he proposed raising taxes during the election.
He did label it as more trivial...
Keep in mind that it's also possible to kill via trade embargos and other interfering with logistics. In the case of intra-EU disputes over everything from beef to the true meaning of chocolate (mmmmmmmm), that's not the case... but it can be done.
Methinks t'was meant to be a jab, lumping the ASIO with all the cracking groups...
Physical evidence usually leaves a trail. For instance, it would be dodgy for police to visit my apartment, plant a stolen handgun, and then claim that I'd used it to rob a store; they would need to coerce witnesses who could place me there, they may need to forge recordings from security cameras, and they would need to pick a time where I had no strong alibi. It'd be even more difficult to claim that I discharged a firearm, due to the powder traces that normally leaves on the shooter.
On the other hand, it would not be that difficult -- given time -- to, say, install a variety of cracking tools and documents, and reams of stolen information in my personal computer.
There are already my prints on the keyboard, and obviously I use it; thus, it would be difficult to prove that I did *not* install that, barring extenuating circumstances like the fact that my connection is neither fast nor always-on -- and thus they would have to take care to choose a time when I *was* dialed in, and to not go overboard with the data that I supposedly downloaded. If they set it up to allow incoming connections, they wouldn't even necessarily have to prove that I was in my apartment, since they could argue that I accessed it remotely.
They're supposed to limit it to:
* Hiding traces of surveillance, and
* Anything that's "reasonably incidental"
Dunno 'bout the judges down there, but "reasonably incidental" o'er here usually wouldn't be interpreted as "massive falsification of evidence"; more like the disruption caused by the electronic B&E method itself.
Might not the Indonesians be a tad annoyed with y'all? Last I checked, the US was being rather reluctant to be involved on-site, and t'was the Aussies who had troops there despite our reluctance...
Hmm. So, aside from the electronic front, what's the general gist of Australian policy re: law enforcement? Do y'all have such things as no-knock warrants, a history of government infiltrators/agent provocateurs in even remotely potentially subversive organizations, leaders whose operatives break into the files of psychiatrists who treat their enemies...
...or is your government more respectful of privacy when it does not involve a computer?
Heh.
;-)
Think they also missed Pittsburgh's ordinance barring giving alcohol or cigarettes to squirrels in city parks...
Yeah, I can really see a grey squirrel relaxing at the end of a long day gathering nuts, with a Bud and a pack of Marlboros.
Socialism. Again, it's no more Communist than, say, those who worship Minerva as God can claim themselves to be Christian (which has also been tried...).
Chinese communism stemmed out of nationalism and disgust with the corrupt ruling regime; it's no coincidence that Lenin and Mao both strengthened their followings during wartime suffering. It was never a worker's revolution; heck, China was not heavily industrialized beforehand -- hence the 5 Year Plans in an attempt to build up heavy industry.
Government ownership by the few Party members -- that's Socialism. Communism would require vast party membership encompassing the entire proletariat, with shared production -- and that has never been done on even the scale of Soviet Russia, let alone the PRC.
No.
Changing is rehabilitation; punishment includes vengeance and deterrence, as well.
The judicial system basically is an immune system; there are folks who may be reformable, but there are those who are definitely, completely, utterly, beyond redemption -- and some of these will even admit it and *ask* for capital punishment. It is unrealistic to believe that all criminals can be changed for the better... and at that point, it is more reasonable to eliminate the threat, permanently.
A traditional example is espionage by an illegal. In ideological or mercenary cases, in contrast to those resulting from blackmail or perhaps false-flag duplicity and manipulation, a trusted individual has made a conscious decision to betray his people. Not only that, but he must maintain this deception, willingly; and instead work against those who would help him -- sometimes for periods of decades. Ideological agents in particular often fail to be repentant in the slightest...
The extremity of the punishment is noted. That is why, unlike numerous other nations, the US system of justice has a large number of safeguards. In particular, the system is relatively open to the public for observation, and invites random people to serve as jurors. To corrupt the entire system of judges, jurors and police is difficult; there are simply far too many. In addition, appeals are permissible, to the point where prisoners on death row have appealed on the grounds that they have been on death row for over a decade -- largely because of their appeals.
Has it ever gone wrong? Yes, and it will again; but in exchange, the most unrepentant and incorrigible are prevented from repeating their crimes on others; given that there ARE such people, and will be, some price *will* be paid -- death penalty or no. The main question is by whom.
And don't bother using loaded arguments like "barbaric". Emotion has no place in rational discussions. Using the word "wrong" would make you seem more reasonable.
If memory serves,
a) it's mostly a financial disincentive -- the parents lose certain benefits -- and
b) it was not applied to all areas; I *think* rural areas were excluded, for practical reasons.
So it's very, very possible.
They'll shoot you for tax evasion, and about 67 other offenses, at least.
Literally.
See Amnesty International's report on the death penalty in China.
It is most emphatically not the computer aspect.
Erm, they probably still do -- in numbers, and in ruthlessness. They normally don't allow one to, say, appeal for 10+ years if they decide to shoot you; and celebrity fan appeals don't mean squat -- as they shouldn't. For instance, according to the "Death Penalty Information Center", an anti-DP site, the total number of executions in the US from 1976 to 1998 reached 500. That's 22 *years*. See their report for details... that's a vastly lower per-capita rate.
Remember that this is a country which essentially celebrated the UN Anti-Drug Day by executing narcotics traffickers. Life has a significantly lower value there.
Only in name, bucko -- no more than the United States is a democracy. Go read some Communist literature, and then compare and contrast.
They are not Communist, and never have been even remotely close to achieving it. It would be more accurate to label them as Totalitarian Socialists, that are (slowly) privatizing to be simply Totalitarians.
Ummm, electronic theft of $ hurts.
I'm pretty sure that $87K is a substantial amount over there considering that their cost of living is likely rather low.
If, say, somebody stole everything out of your bank accounts and online investments, it might be pretty hard to pay the rent, utilities, gambling debts to the Gambinos... that can lead to some pretty physical pain.
I have my doubts that the PRC provides computers to prisoners.
If memory serves, it may have been at least partly an inside job -- i.e. at least one of the brothers was an employee.
The standard penalty for embezzlement over there is death, hacking or no. That's also common for large amounts of theft regardless of means.
Maybe not. If you're tired of being good; the Xmas music had really been getting to you to the point that you want to take aim at Rudolph; or the thought of mobs in malls just makes you want to scream...
:)
...go and relieve some stress. Heh.
...and upon further research, we find out that ssh really stands for Sesame Street Hell.
Folks, don't run sshd -- it's WAY too dangerous to be r00t3d by B1g b1rD, and he and his l33t friends will probably raid ~/.netscape/cookies.
(and let's not talk about Barney's Gateway Protocol...)
Reasoning with 'em? Heh.
Some anti-WTO people put up signs in an academic quad here. It would have helped their credibility rise above "absolutely none" if they had at least realized that the US isn't a democracy, never was, and never was meant to be; it's a representative republic partly to avoid the tyranny of the masses -- as they'd know this if they read the writings of the Founding Fathers and knew anything about government or history...
As long as protesters are violating the laws by blocking streets, it would be remarkably unclued for the militia to join in.
They're already portrayed, often enough, as potentially violent gun loonies. They don't need to simultaneously:
* join in illegally blocking traffic, helping protesters while hampering everybody else
* escalate an already violent confrontation involving rioters, peaceful protesters, city cops, and Guardsmen
* do this on national television
and thus give, say, an excuse for a *serious* crackdown. Instead, certain militias have actually been working *with* law enforcement in various cases 'round the nation, partly to help convince them that they're not opposed to *all* government.