Sounds 'bout right. I had thought about the possibility of using it against the Imperial Navy's carrier groups, but given the distances versus the speed of the waves it doesn't seem as much of an anti-fleet weapon as anti-coastline. 'sides, that late in the war, IIRC (could easily be wrong 'bout this; dates were never my strong point) the Imperial Navy had already sustained severe losses and forced on the defensive...
I'd suspect WWII Japan had a significant part of its population at near sea-level on exposed coastlines. In addition, it was rather dependent upon its navy and associated facilities... They've also had losses due to tsunamis before, so the exact nature of an artificial tsunami might not have been immediately obvious.
...and in their history, legend has it that a large invasion fleet (don't recall whose; pity) sent against them was swept away by divine intervention through the weather. The "divine wind", or Kamikaze, had the (failed) purpose of keeping away a more modern invasion fleet; yes, were that to turn against them might have caused a shock...
Somehow, I doubt you want to see a Blue Screen of Death on a nuke... "SAFETY.dll caused a General Protection Fault at xxxxxxxx:xx." *clicks OK* "Safety disabled. Beginning countdown sequence."
...during a war in which many, MANY military research projects ranging from the odd (siege engines), the truly bizarre (incendiary-carrying bats), to the occasionally practical (computers, radar, rockets, etc) were conducted.
Presumably the target would have been the Japanese archipelago?
That's gotta take a lot of energy, 'tho, to move that much water. And, if you only want the wave to go one way, say, rather than as an ever-growing circular wall of water...
So you work around what you can. It's pretty inconceivable to maintain relatively open borders in a nation that's not a complete police state and still protect against everything.
Fact is, missiles are still around. There are other ways to blow people up, but that doesn't make ICBMs disappear.
Just 'coz you can't stop a weirdo from breaking into your house with a bulldozer, doesn't mean that burglar alarms are silly.
Yes. My point was, 'tho, that rather than disarming and hoping that everybody else follows along, it *might* be just wiser to look at ABM defenses.
Pakistan and India arguably don't threaten the US, nor the US them, since there's so little reason to do so. Other, more 'rogue'-ish states, may consider doing so -- and if we cannot expect quasi-neutral states to follow our example, then why should our enemies?
That's, ermm, quite interesting. I could be quite wrong about this, but the only reason that comes to mind that requires this degree of precision is to hit certain types of targets like hardened silos, seriously reinforced underground bunkers and other heavily protected installations.
Hmmm. That sort of thing's useful for a first strike, no?
Oh, I beg to differ. Are you saying, say, that Israel should have waited patiently for Soviet-backed Syria and Egypt to have struck at it, instead of launching the Six-Day War via pre-emptive strike? Or that the US should have, upon Pearl Harbor, shrugged its shoulders and said, "Eh. You win, we don't care?", and basically kissed Europe, Asia and Africa goodbye by never fighting either Axis power?
Or, perhaps, the US should have played nice to ol' Jeff Davis, and split the country up? Countries should all yield to separatists, right? And you'll leave tea and Toll House cookies for the next burglar who visits your house, true?
It ain't a nice thing to say, but I'll say it. Sometimes, it's perfectly moral to kill. {shrug}
That specific appellation came from the mouth of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, one-time ruler of Iran. He did have reasons to loathe us, such as our support of the Shah whom his Islamic revolution overthrew; if he wasn't going to demonize those who supported his enemies, then he wasn't not being very revolutionary, was he?
In addition, it helps to focus a people if you give 'em a convenient enemy on which to blame all your problems upon. In this case, if memory serves, it might have also been because the US helped sustain Israel as a viable state when it needed it.
So, er, you would have supported Chamberlain? You do remember Munich, and the Sudetenland, and how a certain Austrian failed artist made Chamberlain look like a complete, utter idiot? (Which, to be fair, he was in this case.) By not acting, you also create rather powerful dictators, who then sometimes seem to make the mistake of thinking that they can invade Russia.
Another example: Imperial China did not particularly value its military, instead esteeming culture and scholarship. You had, for instance, an Empress deciding that she needed a lovely garden more than the nation needed a navy with something stronger than cheap wooden ships. So what happened when the other nations noticed?
It's possible to launch a ballistic missile in such a way that the target -- even if nuclear-capable -- would not know where to counter-strike.
First, there are mobile ICBM missile launchers. These include those mounted on railroad cars, and those in submarines. The former are fairly cheap, but have the disadvantage that the host country is most likely the source, and that movement is constrained by needing rail. The latter has the advantage that it can be superbly stealthy (it's hard to track a submarine in the middle of the ocean...), and that it might be unclear whose it is (although there probably aren't that many nations with this capability); the disadvantages are that its expensive and rare.
Second, it is possible that control of a silo or other launch system could be seized by a third party, such as a state-sponsored terrorist group. In such a situation, it may be quite unclear who's responsible... if, say, a silo near a major Russian city such as Vladiostok were seized (I don't know, off-hand, whether they place in bases near cities, or whether they're in more secluded areas. Pardon my lack of specific intel re: Russian military deployments...) by a third party, we would arguably not want to launch. Heck, by the responsible folks would probably be gone by the time that a counterstrike could be launched.
Bah. Why would India and Pakistan sign onto disarmament if the big powers would? Their enemies aren't generally the big powers (and, if we WERE being, for some reason, evil bastards bent on ruthlessly destroying them, we wouldn't need nuclear weapons to do it...). No, it's that Pakistan and India happen to be neighbors with territorial disputes and a long history of conflict.
Suppose, say, Canada were a deadly enemy of the United States. Further suppose that it had comparable conventional forces, of at least sufficient power to stall any invasion but not really enough to successfully mount a hell-bent drive towards Washington. Would, oh, Israel admitting that it had nuclear weapons, but then disarming, have any impact on the US/Canada theatre? No.
Face it: there's really no justification for trying to "lead by example" here. Remember how badly Wilson botched trying to "be nice" w/ the Treaty of Versailles? or, how numerous Lefty traitors/spies apparently wanted the US and UK to demilitarize completely -- but to build up the Stalinist forces, both conventional and nuclear? Does North Korea follow the South's example of sanely leading a similar state, or does it persist in being confrontational by sending commandos for infiltration missions via submarines, and starving its people so it can build nuclear missiles?
Depends. If you're out to get somebody; want a lower standard of proof and fewer protections for the defendant; and wouldn't mind sharing in the proceeds, then civil suits aren't that unusual.
I remember there was a case (tossed out, methinks -- or at least hopes) where somebody tried to sue an off-shore 'Net gambling site, to annull her (considerable) losses, on the grounds that the gambling was illegal under US law. Talk about chutzpah... That's almost as good as the fellow who sued his own company for on-the-job injuries (and hired two lawyers, and so forth...)...
Is that gambling any more than crossing a street is? I've personally come a few feet from being run down, after carelessly expecting that a driver would *not* run a red light. {shrug} Or, I occasionally buy goods online -- and to an extent, I could be said to be gambling on trust in the other party, in the shipping / supply-chain, and so forth. Whatever we do is, to a degree, gambling. The question is where to draw the line.
Is purchasing any form of collectibles gambling? Or, for that matter, shares in, say, AT&T?
One facet that might be looked at is whether there is any intrinsic value besides resale. If Mr. Gates were to speculate in cars by randomly buying luxury vehicles only to sell them like new an hour later, does that mean that buying cars should be treated as gambling since it *could* be used as such? On the other hand, there's not that much use for, say, a round at video poker other than the mathematical expectation of a (negative) reward...
Not being into Pokemon, MtG or any other card game (well, except those that involve poker decks and jokers), I'm not able to claim either way: that they're useless except as commodities to trade/sell (and thus become a variation on currency, but one that's a lot less liquid or reliable), or no. If it's the former case, then it's not that much different than buying envelopes for, say, $10 ea that each may or may not have a larger amount of money in them. Now *that* would be more clearly gambling.
Without making any judgement on the kids'-show-turned-empire, or the trading card frenzies in general:
If the substance of the charges is true (that the company randomly places rarer cards in packs, that turn into commodities due to this practice), it *is* pretty close to gambling. The factor that in my mind separates it is that Nintendo is most likely making no promises whatsoever about any intrinsic value of these cards; that is determined by market economics. Unlike, say, a raffle or lottery (which promises that a winning ticket *will* be worth a specific prize, or a share of a monetary jackpot), these cards could drop in value if the company said, "You don't like rare cards? Fine. We'll publish 'em en masse, for cheap.", or if the craze simply died out.
Ya buy, what, marked cardboard? And no promises about the value of such. On the other hand, a casino had better honor its chips...
Whether or not the government should be in the business of regulating gambling -- as it does --- is somewhat of a side issue, unless Nintendo is specifically trying to challenge that doctrine.
If wealth is finite, then reason dictates that there be trillions of dollars in paleolithic wealth. Where are they?
Oh, but wait -- wealth can be produced now, eh? Then who does the production? Hint: It's normally not the moochers.
Fine. Make 10 million, then quit. Don't do anything else, don't produce, heck, burn everything you've got. Destroy it all, it's no use to you anyway. Let's seize all the industry and turn the starving masses to work on it. Oh, Joe the Homeless Chap doesn't know how to write a database? Doesn't matter; he needs the job, you don't, and never mind the consequences.
Hmm. I've seen a number of these posts about IDs...
One thing that they *do* help stop outsiders doing is casing the place in advance. If somebody *really* wants to massacre the folks inside, they might normally want to take a tour. Things like the locations of exits, choke points, cover in the surrounding terrain, the level of security, and so forth might all interest a psycho who's interested in playing sniper...
Sure. It's not going to stop somebody from waltzing in with an MP5 (or, more likely, a 12-gauge) and starting a one-sided firefight -- but short of having tight control over all possible entrances, a wide zone where no one may approach unobserved, and armed guards, what will? If an individual doesn't mind dying in the attempt, prevention is damn tough.
It *might* stop somebody from first hiding explosive devices around the place, or caching ammunition or additional weapons in the vicinity.It *might* stop that person from figuring out where the large concentrations of students are likely to be. And so forth.
It doesn't do much at all to insiders, of course, and that's a pretty big gaping hole.
Perhaps opening an account to receive the message leaves too much of a trail? I don't recall the article saying *how* the crackers were paid off (suitcase full of cash, say; or seized collateral, or whatever) but the bright ones, presumably, wouldn't accept anything like a personal check...
In a better society, who would have detected this particular apparent problem, assuming that he didn't voluntarily step forward? His family? Co-workers? Sysadmin? (It does happen; remember a former head of the Harvard Divinity School? A computer techie discovered his (non-kiddie) porn collection; that's why he's former...).
Or law enforcement, or one of his victims? In the former case, they'd have to be either acting pre-emptively (as in this case), or real-time (monitoring all communications), or passively (waiting for victims to emerge). In the latter case, how many would be willing and able to come forward?
At least in this case, it seems that there isn't a trail of victims to attribute (directly) to him. {shrug}
As an American, I'm amused to see a Frenchman doing all he can to promote the stereotype of the snobby-but-clueless Frenchman. HAND. And as if atheism weren't as presumptuous as the rest... {shrug}
I'm quite sure that you don't have to swear on the Bible in a U.S. court, considering that one can affirm instead (as certain religions forbid the swearing of oaths as such). I suppose an agnostic or atheist could make a strong case for swearing on a volume of the U.S. Code...
'suppose, were I ever to be dragged into court, I could make a case that swearing on a book that whose contents I do not fully accept would be rather disrespectful of those that do, and arguably blasphemous. What they really require is the verbal version of signing your name to a statement that you're not about to commit perjury; once that's entered in the court records, you're bound by law regardless of whether it was a paper signature or an oath sworn in court in front of witnesses or what have you.
* With the chat transcripts only, one *might* be able to make a case that he wouldn't *really* have gone for a 13-yr-old; *maybe*. There'd have to be some strong indications from his part, 'tho, in what was said; if he never contradicted that during the conversations or elsewhere, then he (and his lawyers) have a tougher nut to crack.
His having kiddie porn *seriously* damages his case, methinks, since it makes it far harder to argue that he wouldn't pursue young teens.
* Yes, people fib in chats. But there have been instances of teens actually running off from home to meet people that they meet online, suggesting that some aren't being raised paranoid 'nuff. It happens.
* About child porn: I'm pretty sure that it's illegal to transmit across state lines, or even possess. Off-hand, I don't know whether that's a result of anti-obscenity measures, or whether it's based on non-consent somehow. Anyways, there have been high-profile cases of people busted for sending it across state lines, anyway.
* It's akin to a phone conversation. It's pretty difficult to verify that anybody whom you're not meeting in person is who/what they say they are, but if (say, a decade ago) you called a number in Medellin and asked for a hundred kilos, neither the DEA or a jury is going to buy an argument that you were just kidding around.
It might have been interesting if they had also polled to see which sources of information are used (and in what order, if possible). At least on Usenet, there are an awful lot of questions that keep coming up, over and over and over, suggesting that Usenet appears to be a darn-near-first resource for some...
The sources that come to mind include, in no particular order:
* The LDP guides (esp. the _User's Guide_, since apparently stuff like that was wanted). * The HOWTOs. * man/info/... pages. * Vendor-supplied documentation (installation manuals and so forth). * Third-party books, on Linux or Unix in general. * Other people (*nix-using friends), such as in LUGs. * Web resources (hardware databases, and so forth) * Usenet / Usenet archives (deja) / Usenet FAQ archives (rtfm.mit.edu)
For somebody who doesn't know any *nix-using people and doesn't have a background in CLI archives, nor in hunting down scraps of info w/ Google and company, a list could be rather important...
* Have the usual anti-truancy regulations, that aren't location-specific. If they have those, and presumably they do, then that should cover 'net cafes, as well. Truancy in a 'net cafe is still truancy.
* If these 'net cafes are *really* dens of iniquity, then they should be able to crack down on 'em -- given that there aren't that many, according to the article; and it would seem likely that the business owners would be at least somewhat liable.
The justification that they give is... odd. If pushers go to the schools, will they evict the pushers or the students?
'coz there's a difference in "learning by example" and "filling in the gaps".
A *good* author shouldn't just pull a 'plot outline' from a stack of pre-generated index cards and fill in the blanks, although that's a perfectly good way to sell hordes of cheapo paperback copies if you don't mind putting your name on absolute drivel. Stuff like that *does* seem to sell, after all.
Instead, if you search hard enough you can find highly original authors, like Eco, Brunner (arguably), and so forth. Not all human authors crank out "techno-thrillers" with the same characters and insanely similar plots each time, or story after story about writers being terrorized, or what-not.
A computer that gets fed a plot structure and creates entirely new ones is fine. One that fills in the blanks, is coming nowhere near the level of achievement of the (better...) human authors.
* The legislation hasn't been introduced yet; wait 'til December to see if there's a change of heart.
* The backing for it appears to be tied towards some not-yet-introduced "Cyberspace Electronic Security Act of 1999", which includes the FBI code-cracker funding. I'd be curious to see what other provisions are intended.
* Companies still need to get a (one-time) certification for export, so you're still not home-free.
* They still oppose the "Security and Freedom through Encryption Act", on the odd grounds that the only people who would be safe "would be spies"...
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds 'bout right. I had thought about the possibility of using it against the Imperial Navy's carrier groups, but given the distances versus the speed of the waves it doesn't seem as much of an anti-fleet weapon as anti-coastline. 'sides, that late in the war, IIRC (could easily be wrong 'bout this; dates were never my strong point) the Imperial Navy had already sustained severe losses and forced on the defensive...
I'd suspect WWII Japan had a significant part of its population at near sea-level on exposed coastlines. In addition, it was rather dependent upon its navy and associated facilities... They've also had losses due to tsunamis before, so the exact nature of an artificial tsunami might not have been immediately obvious.
...and in their history, legend has it that a large invasion fleet (don't recall whose; pity) sent against them was swept away by divine intervention through the weather. The "divine wind", or Kamikaze, had the (failed) purpose of keeping away a more modern invasion fleet; yes, were that to turn against them might have caused a shock...
Somehow, I doubt you want to see a Blue Screen of Death on a nuke... "SAFETY.dll caused a General Protection Fault at xxxxxxxx:xx." *clicks OK* "Safety disabled. Beginning countdown sequence."
...during a war in which many, MANY military research projects ranging from the odd (siege engines), the truly bizarre (incendiary-carrying bats), to the occasionally practical (computers, radar, rockets, etc) were conducted.
Presumably the target would have been the Japanese archipelago?
That's gotta take a lot of energy, 'tho, to move that much water. And, if you only want the wave to go one way, say, rather than as an ever-growing circular wall of water...
So you work around what you can. It's pretty inconceivable to maintain relatively open borders in a nation that's not a complete police state and still protect against everything.
Fact is, missiles are still around. There are other ways to blow people up, but that doesn't make ICBMs disappear.
Just 'coz you can't stop a weirdo from breaking into your house with a bulldozer, doesn't mean that burglar alarms are silly.
Yes. My point was, 'tho, that rather than disarming and hoping that everybody else follows along, it *might* be just wiser to look at ABM defenses.
Pakistan and India arguably don't threaten the US, nor the US them, since there's so little reason to do so. Other, more 'rogue'-ish states, may consider doing so -- and if we cannot expect quasi-neutral states to follow our example, then why should our enemies?
That's, ermm, quite interesting. I could be quite wrong about this, but the only reason that comes to mind that requires this degree of precision is to hit certain types of targets like hardened silos, seriously reinforced underground bunkers and other heavily protected installations.
Hmmm. That sort of thing's useful for a first strike, no?
Oh, I beg to differ. Are you saying, say, that Israel should have waited patiently for Soviet-backed Syria and Egypt to have struck at it, instead of launching the Six-Day War via pre-emptive strike? Or that the US should have, upon Pearl Harbor, shrugged its shoulders and said, "Eh. You win, we don't care?", and basically kissed Europe, Asia and Africa goodbye by never fighting either Axis power?
Or, perhaps, the US should have played nice to ol' Jeff Davis, and split the country up? Countries should all yield to separatists, right? And you'll leave tea and Toll House cookies for the next burglar who visits your house, true?
It ain't a nice thing to say, but I'll say it. Sometimes, it's perfectly moral to kill. {shrug}
That specific appellation came from the mouth of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, one-time ruler of Iran. He did have reasons to loathe us, such as our support of the Shah whom his Islamic revolution overthrew; if he wasn't going to demonize those who supported his enemies, then he wasn't not being very revolutionary, was he?
In addition, it helps to focus a people if you give 'em a convenient enemy on which to blame all your problems upon. In this case, if memory serves, it might have also been because the US helped sustain Israel as a viable state when it needed it.
Please think a tad deeper. Ever heard of submarines? Or thought about what would happen if a third party subverted a silo?
So, er, you would have supported Chamberlain? You do remember Munich, and the Sudetenland, and how a certain Austrian failed artist made Chamberlain look like a complete, utter idiot? (Which, to be fair, he was in this case.) By not acting, you also create rather powerful dictators, who then sometimes seem to make the mistake of thinking that they can invade Russia.
Another example: Imperial China did not particularly value its military, instead esteeming culture and scholarship. You had, for instance, an Empress deciding that she needed a lovely garden more than the nation needed a navy with something stronger than cheap wooden ships. So what happened when the other nations noticed?
It's possible to launch a ballistic missile in such a way that the target -- even if nuclear-capable -- would not know where to counter-strike.
First, there are mobile ICBM missile launchers. These include those mounted on railroad cars, and those in submarines. The former are fairly cheap, but have the disadvantage that the host country is most likely the source, and that movement is constrained by needing rail. The latter has the advantage that it can be superbly stealthy (it's hard to track a submarine in the middle of the ocean...), and that it might be unclear whose it is (although there probably aren't that many nations with this capability); the disadvantages are that its expensive and rare.
Second, it is possible that control of a silo or other launch system could be seized by a third party, such as a state-sponsored terrorist group. In such a situation, it may be quite unclear who's responsible... if, say, a silo near a major Russian city such as Vladiostok were seized (I don't know, off-hand, whether they place in bases near cities, or whether they're in more secluded areas. Pardon my lack of specific intel re: Russian military deployments...) by a third party, we would arguably not want to launch. Heck, by the responsible folks would probably be gone by the time that a counterstrike could be launched.
Bah. Why would India and Pakistan sign onto disarmament if the big powers would? Their enemies aren't generally the big powers (and, if we WERE being, for some reason, evil bastards bent on ruthlessly destroying them, we wouldn't need nuclear weapons to do it...). No, it's that Pakistan and India happen to be neighbors with territorial disputes and a long history of conflict.
Suppose, say, Canada were a deadly enemy of the United States. Further suppose that it had comparable conventional forces, of at least sufficient power to stall any invasion but not really enough to successfully mount a hell-bent drive towards Washington. Would, oh, Israel admitting that it had nuclear weapons, but then disarming, have any impact on the US/Canada theatre? No.
Face it: there's really no justification for trying to "lead by example" here. Remember how badly Wilson botched trying to "be nice" w/ the Treaty of Versailles? or, how numerous Lefty traitors/spies apparently wanted the US and UK to demilitarize completely -- but to build up the Stalinist forces, both conventional and nuclear? Does North Korea follow the South's example of sanely leading a similar state, or does it persist in being confrontational by sending commandos for infiltration missions via submarines, and starving its people so it can build nuclear missiles?
And so forth.
Depends. If you're out to get somebody; want a lower standard of proof and fewer protections for the defendant; and wouldn't mind sharing in the proceeds, then civil suits aren't that unusual.
I remember there was a case (tossed out, methinks -- or at least hopes) where somebody tried to sue an off-shore 'Net gambling site, to annull her (considerable) losses, on the grounds that the gambling was illegal under US law. Talk about chutzpah... That's almost as good as the fellow who sued his own company for on-the-job injuries (and hired two lawyers, and so forth...)...
Is that gambling any more than crossing a street is? I've personally come a few feet from being run down, after carelessly expecting that a driver would *not* run a red light. {shrug} Or, I occasionally buy goods online -- and to an extent, I could be said to be gambling on trust in the other party, in the shipping / supply-chain, and so forth. Whatever we do is, to a degree, gambling. The question is where to draw the line.
Is purchasing any form of collectibles gambling? Or, for that matter, shares in, say, AT&T?
One facet that might be looked at is whether there is any intrinsic value besides resale. If Mr. Gates were to speculate in cars by randomly buying luxury vehicles only to sell them like new an hour later, does that mean that buying cars should be treated as gambling since it *could* be used as such? On the other hand, there's not that much use for, say, a round at video poker other than the mathematical expectation of a (negative) reward...
Not being into Pokemon, MtG or any other card game (well, except those that involve poker decks and jokers), I'm not able to claim either way: that they're useless except as commodities to trade/sell (and thus become a variation on currency, but one that's a lot less liquid or reliable), or no. If it's the former case, then it's not that much different than buying envelopes for, say, $10 ea that each may or may not have a larger amount of money in them. Now *that* would be more clearly gambling.
Without making any judgement on the kids'-show-turned-empire, or the trading card frenzies in general:
If the substance of the charges is true (that the company randomly places rarer cards in packs, that turn into commodities due to this practice), it *is* pretty close to gambling. The factor that in my mind separates it is that Nintendo is most likely making no promises whatsoever about any intrinsic value of these cards; that is determined by market economics. Unlike, say, a raffle or lottery (which promises that a winning ticket *will* be worth a specific prize, or a share of a monetary jackpot), these cards could drop in value if the company said, "You don't like rare cards? Fine. We'll publish 'em en masse, for cheap.", or if the craze simply died out.
Ya buy, what, marked cardboard? And no promises about the value of such. On the other hand, a casino had better honor its chips...
Whether or not the government should be in the business of regulating gambling -- as it does --- is somewhat of a side issue, unless Nintendo is specifically trying to challenge that doctrine.
If wealth is finite, then reason dictates that there be trillions of dollars in paleolithic wealth. Where are they?
Oh, but wait -- wealth can be produced now, eh? Then who does the production? Hint: It's normally not the moochers.
Fine. Make 10 million, then quit. Don't do anything else, don't produce, heck, burn everything you've got. Destroy it all, it's no use to you anyway. Let's seize all the industry and turn the starving masses to work on it. Oh, Joe the Homeless Chap doesn't know how to write a database? Doesn't matter; he needs the job, you don't, and never mind the consequences.
Go read some Locke.
Hmm. I've seen a number of these posts about IDs...
One thing that they *do* help stop outsiders doing is casing the place in advance. If somebody *really* wants to massacre the folks inside, they might normally want to take a tour. Things like the locations of exits, choke points, cover in the surrounding terrain, the level of security, and so forth might all interest a psycho who's interested in playing sniper...
Sure. It's not going to stop somebody from waltzing in with an MP5 (or, more likely, a 12-gauge) and starting a one-sided firefight -- but short of having tight control over all possible entrances, a wide zone where no one may approach unobserved, and armed guards, what will? If an individual doesn't mind dying in the attempt, prevention is damn tough.
It *might* stop somebody from first hiding explosive devices around the place, or caching ammunition or additional weapons in the vicinity.It *might* stop that person from figuring out where the large concentrations of students are likely to be. And so forth.
It doesn't do much at all to insiders, of course, and that's a pretty big gaping hole.
Perhaps opening an account to receive the message leaves too much of a trail? I don't recall the article saying *how* the crackers were paid off (suitcase full of cash, say; or seized collateral, or whatever) but the bright ones, presumably, wouldn't accept anything like a personal check...
In a better society, who would have detected this particular apparent problem, assuming that he didn't voluntarily step forward? His family? Co-workers? Sysadmin? (It does happen; remember a former head of the Harvard Divinity School? A computer techie discovered his (non-kiddie) porn collection; that's why he's former...).
Or law enforcement, or one of his victims? In the former case, they'd have to be either acting pre-emptively (as in this case), or real-time (monitoring all communications), or passively (waiting for victims to emerge). In the latter case, how many would be willing and able to come forward?
At least in this case, it seems that there isn't a trail of victims to attribute (directly) to him. {shrug}
As an American, I'm amused to see a Frenchman doing all he can to promote the stereotype of the snobby-but-clueless Frenchman. HAND. And as if atheism weren't as presumptuous as the rest... {shrug}
I'm quite sure that you don't have to swear on the Bible in a U.S. court, considering that one can affirm instead (as certain religions forbid the swearing of oaths as such). I suppose an agnostic or atheist could make a strong case for swearing on a volume of the U.S. Code...
'suppose, were I ever to be dragged into court, I could make a case that swearing on a book that whose contents I do not fully accept would be rather disrespectful of those that do, and arguably blasphemous. What they really require is the verbal version of signing your name to a statement that you're not about to commit perjury; once that's entered in the court records, you're bound by law regardless of whether it was a paper signature or an oath sworn in court in front of witnesses or what have you.
Some random notes...
* With the chat transcripts only, one *might* be able to make a case that he wouldn't *really* have gone for a 13-yr-old; *maybe*. There'd have to be some strong indications from his part, 'tho, in what was said; if he never contradicted that during the conversations or elsewhere, then he (and his lawyers) have a tougher nut to crack.
His having kiddie porn *seriously* damages his case, methinks, since it makes it far harder to argue that he wouldn't pursue young teens.
* Yes, people fib in chats. But there have been instances of teens actually running off from home to meet people that they meet online, suggesting that some aren't being raised paranoid 'nuff. It happens.
* About child porn: I'm pretty sure that it's illegal to transmit across state lines, or even possess. Off-hand, I don't know whether that's a result of anti-obscenity measures, or whether it's based on non-consent somehow. Anyways, there have been high-profile cases of people busted for sending it across state lines, anyway.
* It's akin to a phone conversation. It's pretty difficult to verify that anybody whom you're not meeting in person is who/what they say they are, but if (say, a decade ago) you called a number in Medellin and asked for a hundred kilos, neither the DEA or a jury is going to buy an argument that you were just kidding around.
It might have been interesting if they had also polled to see which sources of information are used (and in what order, if possible). At least on Usenet, there are an awful lot of questions that keep coming up, over and over and over, suggesting that Usenet appears to be a darn-near-first resource for some...
The sources that come to mind include, in no particular order:
* The LDP guides (esp. the _User's Guide_, since apparently stuff like that was wanted).
* The HOWTOs.
* man/info/... pages.
* Vendor-supplied documentation (installation manuals and so forth).
* Third-party books, on Linux or Unix in general.
* Other people (*nix-using friends), such as in LUGs.
* Web resources (hardware databases, and so forth)
* Usenet / Usenet archives (deja) / Usenet FAQ archives (rtfm.mit.edu)
For somebody who doesn't know any *nix-using people and doesn't have a background in CLI archives, nor in hunting down scraps of info w/ Google and company, a list could be rather important...
So, why not:
* Have the usual anti-truancy regulations, that aren't location-specific. If they have those, and presumably they do, then that should cover 'net cafes, as well. Truancy in a 'net cafe is still truancy.
* If these 'net cafes are *really* dens of iniquity, then they should be able to crack down on 'em -- given that there aren't that many, according to the article; and it would seem likely that the business owners would be at least somewhat liable.
The justification that they give is... odd. If pushers go to the schools, will they evict the pushers or the students?
'coz there's a difference in "learning by example" and "filling in the gaps".
A *good* author shouldn't just pull a 'plot outline' from a stack of pre-generated index cards and fill in the blanks, although that's a perfectly good way to sell hordes of cheapo paperback copies if you don't mind putting your name on absolute drivel. Stuff like that *does* seem to sell, after all.
Instead, if you search hard enough you can find highly original authors, like Eco, Brunner (arguably), and so forth. Not all human authors crank out "techno-thrillers" with the same characters and insanely similar plots each time, or story after story about writers being terrorized, or what-not.
A computer that gets fed a plot structure and creates entirely new ones is fine. One that fills in the blanks, is coming nowhere near the level of achievement of the (better...) human authors.
According to the Washington Post article,
* The legislation hasn't been introduced yet; wait 'til December to see if there's a change of heart.
* The backing for it appears to be tied towards some not-yet-introduced "Cyberspace Electronic Security Act of 1999", which includes the FBI code-cracker funding. I'd be curious to see what other provisions are intended.
* Companies still need to get a (one-time) certification for export, so you're still not home-free.
* They still oppose the "Security and Freedom through Encryption Act", on the odd grounds that the only people who would be safe "would be spies"...