Lols. Dude the only reason I'm trolling you is to make the punishment fit the crime. When you go around accusing people of being a troll simply because it hurts your brain to consider what they have to say, then the only thing left is to troll.
No, I accused you are being a troll because that is what you were doing. I made a statement that is backed largely by public opinion, added my opinion to it. You came about demanding conditions that were entirely arbitrary and subjective and couldn't deal with me not wanting to go down that path. When I finally did go down and list some things, you completely ignored them to jump to your next line of idiocy. You gave no one a taste of anything except your extreme lunacy.
You bring it on yourself, especially because you are so easy to provoke -- troll, troll, herp, derp, troll, troll, dirkadirka, troll.
Do you really think you provoked me? I mean seriously, I spotted you as a troll from your second post onward, made that notice public knowledge and refused to dive into your crap citing the flaws in it. It would seem that in your mind you are the master of third grade recess. Well, truthfully, I don't really care, most of us have grown up and moved on. If you are demanding that you be allowed to act like an immature ass using third grade logic, then go back to the playground and stop your insistent mental masturbation before you get all sticky.
Your state might have had laws that were different then what they are now. They may have even been changed because of 911. However, the constitutionality of that was already set well before 2001.
It may be a situation here where your state actually forbid that type of behavior and then allowed it. The US constitution only restricts government to what it can do with a few clauses spelling out what it can't do. Your state could have been more restrictive in this sense.
However, if they do have that, and it can be articulated to the judge, then chances are, it's the same as with in the UK, you will get arrested for not showing.
A lot of people watch reality shows in the US and one set of them are particularly dangerous. These are the cop's series of reality TV shows. They will run reruns of cops doing things that the courts have ruled unconstitutional and the only valid reasoning for this that I can think of, is to get the US population used to the idea that the cops can get away with it. In fact, most of their shows are designed in this way where a cop pulls someone over for speeding, someone ends up searching the trunk and finds 10 kilos of cocaine hiding under the spare tire. They do nothing to show how they got probably cause to search the trunk or anything and the only thing I can figure is that it was a set up stunt because they want people to think they can search your bunghole for speeding or not using your turn signal.
That sad part about it is, that people believe they can do this and give in.
Asking a passenger for ID didn't change around 2001. It had been that way for as long as I can remember and that has been well before 2001.
A cop, as supported by several challenges on the constitutionality of it that went in their favor, can identify anyone in the car, search the immediate area of the driver and any passengers, remove them from the car, frisk and handcuff them while waiting to finish with whatever caused the otherwise legal stop, all in the name of personal safety to the cop. They can't however, open glove boxes or enter locked areas of the car, nor can they take papers or other items that cannot be considered a weapon out of the personal possession under this for their safety exclusion without falling back to a traditional warrant and constitutionally protected search scheme.
A lot of people attempt to blame this all on 911. That's for the most part a fallacy. What happened after 2001 is that people started paying attention and pointing out stuff they were previously oblivious to. Most of the offended people who do this, was just coming of an age at the time in which they became politically aware. A lot of the older people who have already accepted this type of behavior still don't see anything wrong with it until it happens to them.
Perhaps if you made sense outside your own warped little mind, I could see that. However, you don't and I have attempted to end this thread more then 3 times only to have you jump back in with yet another lame ass claim of some sort that doesn't even begin to touch the topic at hand..
Go troll elsewhere. Try the third grade where your whit might be better matched.
We bombed Vietnam more than all our bombing in WWII. We defoliated the jungles and resettled people (who didn't want to go) into "secure hamlets." Thousands of noncombatants died. When the war was over the horror of Cambodia resulted. We fought there WAY longer than we fought in WWII, and we still couldn't "win." Only an absolute fool would want to keep fighting in Vietnam any longer.
Did you see where I said we didn't go into the war trying to win? You attempt to bring a comparison to WWII but fail because in WWII, we not only bombed Germany and the Axis home front, we invaded and destroyed their ability to make war. When we took an area in WWII, we held it until the lines passed so far in front of it, that it wasn't necessary. In Vietnam, we wasted most of those bombs and shells on the people transporting supplies. We bombed the north but nothing substantial as a lot of their ability to wage war was created in other countries. And we certainly didn't invade the north in order to seize their government ordering the war.
They are two completely different beasts and the differences, some of which you pointed out, support my concept.
What did Vietnam have that we need? Absolutely nothing. Not a god damn thing.
lol.. So are you attempting to say that because we had no use for anything in Vietnam, we should overlook a communist take over that would have also taken over most of Europe had NATO not stepped in and told Russia to stop?
In the very least, how are we going to get anything we want from any country that does have something we need if we sit back and ignore the cries for help from those countries that don't have anything we need?
We intervened in a civil war taking place in one country--Vietnam. There was no "South Vietnam" except insofar as it was created by the Allies after WWII. It was all one country. The leaders of "South Vietnaam" were crap. Have you ever read about Bao Dai or Ngo Dinh Diem? They were awful. When we ramped up the war (because WE wanted to), we had to depose Diem and replace him with more pliant generals. The "leaders" of South Vietnam didn't want to prosecute the war aggressively--WE DID.
It was not a civil war. I wish you idiots would learn some real fucking history. That is unless you count 1 million people sneaking across the border, staging, then attempting to overthrow the government a civil war. the rest of your drivel is more obsolete BS surrounding your incorrect assumptions on history.
Vietnam was a French territory from 1885 or so up until 1954 with the exception of about 6 months in 1945 when it was under control of the Japanese. Communists in the north had resisted the french and gained support from the communists of the world in about 1941 and broke free from french control. The south remained a colony of France until 1954 when France gave out as their colonial administration was dissolved in the Geneva Conference of 1954. Vietnam was in effect, two separate countries at this time and was not a country at all for almost 100 years prior. The UN recognized both countries as separate entities, both with separate and independent sovereignty.
With support from Russia and China (after Comecon orchestrated the communist overthrow in china), They funded and armed North Vietnam with the intent of expanding into south Vietnam in an attempt to expand communism.
Now here is the part you should pay particular attention to. Communism, if created from the inside out at the will of the people, is fine and dandy. But you cannot say it is the will of the people who outsiders come into the country and take arms in order to force a revolution. It's little more then the idiot communist who attempted to overthrow the US government back in 1919. And how did we stop that? We deported members of the communist part USA who were not natural born citizens.
Your entire concept is polluted with ignorance and re
Lol, so you are saying that it is only in YOUR head that people put down Bush to feel better about themselves.I am sorry. I didn't realize I was dealing with a retarded person, I thought I was up against a troll. Ok, listen carefully please. Bush became president, he was the owner (part) and CEO of a base ball team, and has done many more things then you will ever do. You nit picking that those things aren't worthwhile in your mind is little more then you rejecting his successes and putting him down, so you can feel better about your non-existent life.
Thus admitting that your judgment of their actions is completely about yourself and not about them at all.,/blockquote>When did I attempt to put words in your mouth? Is achieving the highest elected office in the land an achievement, you bet it is. Is overcomming a drug and alcohol addiction that almost ruined you life an achievement, you bet it is. If you think these achievements are only worthy of mention because they are in my head, it obvious that you are just trolling.
Kinda what I thought from the beginning, just surprised you copped to it.
I don't think that means what you think it means. Actually, I'm pretty sure you know what it means and are just saying it to get a rise out of someone. I can see through you like a freshly washed windows in the middle of the day. Your just trolling, I finally answered your questions and you simply ignored it and went on to some blah blah blah, I can see how I'm right in my mind crap because this means (insert something that isn't even close).
the reason you are surprised is because it only exists in your head. Try going back to school and working on your reading comprehension a bit.
That is pure psychopathy.
lol..so your going to dismiss this out of hand as something you invented in your head while at the same time, over looking the printed word of the bible and any other references that would place Saint Peter and heaven together.
You see, you are a complete idiot doing nothing but trying to bring others down in order to prop yourself up. When you ignore the obvious, skate around the very answeres to your own questions, and present scenarios that you obviously have little to no clue about that in turn gets handed to you, you show the world what I said is true.
FYI, In Germany we have the Rechtsweggarantie which means that whenever your rights are infringed by the state you can sue the state.
That's true in the US to the extent that the US constitution or law passed by congress bars the US government from infringing those rights. It's probably set that way in Germany because of the history of events leading up to WWII. If you could sue for wrong, a lot of things that were done might have been stopped (assuming the government would listen to the rulings and the courts weren't stacked with cronyism rubber stamping the current trends).
It does appear to be a common law thing. However, the government of the US, through either the Constitution, or laws passed, has waived it's immunity rights in a lot of areas. The US attempted to create a limited federal government that was granted abilities as long as they didn't encroach on freedoms blocked by the constitution.
That has long been lost in the shuffle of politics and it's back to the right of kings so to say in which people have manipulated the government and constitutional interpretations to invoke some idea of limitless government capable of everything and anything. In this, you see things happen that makes us all wonder.
if the Supreme Court ruled about it then somebody must have brought a suit, correct?
Well, they did. This is because the US constitution says we are free from all unreasonable searches and seizures and those searches will be supported by probably cause and a warrant. This was the standing needed to sue against the government. However, the court rules that as a right of sovereignty, protecting and controlling what passed through the borders override the US constitution.
Lol, I'll take that as admitting that you can't think of anything that he did that was worthwhile.
No, take that as meaning the term worthwhile is subjective and is a requirement that I never placed when making the comment. I was avoiding it because it will just turn into a flame war from someone who is arguable trolling.
While we are making up arbitrary phrasing to rationalize our love of hierarchy... Which is going to sound better to Saint Peter? I was president of the united states of america during the single worst economy in the history of the country and caused the deaths of over 100,000 and maiming of over 500,000 people due to my direct orders to invade a country under false pretences OR I flipped burgers at burger town living in my mom's basement and lived a completely unremarkable life? --
I think you got it without realizing it. Your requirement is arbitrary and subjective. Because you see, in my subjective world, I think St. Peter would appreciate the good that was done by removing the 500k people who were basically bad people for the most part.
Do you see how arbitrary and subjective that is? You made it sound like a christian saint would disagree with the killing of people from some other religion who is attempting to kill his religion's people. And the economy got shot to hell because they scammers and asshats making it difficult for the little people finally got taken down.
Do I need to get more subjective in this analysis? I mean seriously, it's nothing more at this point then what you want to see as good and bad verses what I want to see as good and bad. If this is the leg you are trying to stand on, then go troll somewhere else.
It's still a bigger achievement then most of us will ever accomplish. You are the one placing the arbitrary meaningful qualification to it.
If you don't believe me, ask yourself which sounds better on a job application for the last 8 years of employment. I was president of the United States of America, verses, I flipped burgers at burger town while living in mom's basement and going on line to argue and complain about everything that is wrong in this world.
In the first continental congress of the newly formed United States of America, they passed a law allowing warrant-less searches at the borders. This was upheld by the US supreme court as being necessary as a right of sovereignty.
So the concept of the country above the law has existed even back then. The point being, the US cannot have blurred the concept of the rule of law so much -- all in the name of "national security" (read: corruption). It already existed in this form for the entire life of the US and nothing concerning national security or the modern day corruption has changed that. It's little more then a poetic dream to think it was any different at any time the US has been in existence concerning sovereign immunity.
It could get worse. Suppose someone is looking to get married and decide to do a check on who they are marrying.
The article claims "Gotham Dating Partners hoped to position itself as a dating service as well as a "public information source" for individuals and corporations needing accurate information on US citizens, Jordan said."
So what happens when their accurate information scraped from the web claims your wife to be- used to be a stripper in Las Vegas who has been married 5 times in 5 years to rich doctors who died of mysterious causes because her maiden name matches the maiden name of someone like that?
I can so a plethroa of problems arising from this. Not only because they will get things wrong, but because people like to provide fake information to remain anonymous on the interweb and there is no telling what is real or not.
However, I think your whit might be lost on the younger crowd who probably weren't alive when Jeffrey Dahmner and Lizzie Borden were central figures in the news.
I agree with you.. Besides, how many people in the US alone share the same names? Are there going to be ten different John Smith profiles? And which John Smith profile are they going to attach to John Smith of Seattle Washington who just moves there and now resides in a town along with 5 or more other john smiths already living there.
I can see it now, John Smith's profile would read like a jesus freak, necrophiliac, race car driver, drug user set out to kill cops, who was hurt in gym class yesterday playing dodge ball. Getting some of those things ascribed to me would pretty much piss me off- not to mention harm you in future job searches if they decide to make this information available to anyone concerned as the article mentions.
I submit that the perception of the rule of law you are inferring never existed in the first place.
The concept of sovereign immunity and the right of sovereignty was around long before the US became a country and it is evident in some of our very first laws passed as supported by constitutional challenges to them. Furthermore, it's built into our legal system in the sense of needing some sort of standing to sue.
And BTW, most people I have seen who has analyzed the code, see sloppy comments and otherwise poor programing habits but not really anything necessarily wrong with the available code that would ascribe malicious or lax security goals.
The problem with your liability theory is that if the feds had the same source code the MS has had all along, then anything they find that MS doesn't know about would indicate a lack of due diligence on MS's side to protect their operating code.
What I mean is, if you produce a piece of crap and call it a bacon sandwich, and I get access to that bacon sandwich's raw ingredients and cause something to happen where everyone see it as a piece of crap, as long as you have the same if not more information about that piece of crap then I do, then it's up to you to make it actually into the bacon sandwich that you are selling. If I find security holes, you should have been able to find security holes. If I exploit those holes, unless you pacth them, then you failed to prevent those security holes from being exploited.
In the end, from a courts perspective, what will happen is that because you failed to stop those security holes from being exploited, then you failed to show you didn't want them exploited. Sure, you don't want virus infesting your baby, but this is a little different. You are attempting to show that one entity harmed another by doing something that you didn't know could be done. Then you are saying that they were able to do this because they had access to the same stuff you had access to all along. The obvious answer to this is, if you had the same access and didn't want the code to be exploited, then you should have locked it down.
This is why I brought up a zero day flaw. If a white hat researcher finds a flaw, notifies MS about it, then releases the information to the public 6 months later when it hasn't been fixed only to find people taking advantage of the security flaw, does anyone have a right to sue anyone else? Well, the answer is no. And I don't think this is any different.
Most likely because it wasn't invented yet and it wasn't called that yet.
Besides, how do you know there wasn't one parked in the shade of an apple tree? Just because the books didn't talk about it doesn't mean it wasn't so.. Well outside the obvious of when it was invented.
Actually, do you have a point somewhere that I missed?
You lose a war when the enemy beats you. There is a difference. Giving up and going home isn't exactly losing a war. It's not a win, but it's not losing either.
The problem was we weren't fighting a war to begin with and the American public saw that with all the news footage of the war streaming into their living rooms. We were only attempting to help a country maintain control of it's territory.
And you say thank god as if that was a good thing. Tell me, was it a good thing to allow tons of people to get murdered in for the ideals of communism? Was it a good thing to allow millions basically become slaves to an ideal they didn't support?
The government is immune from all lawsuits unless it authorizes them somehow by law or the constitution provides something overriding that concept. For the majority of lawsuits against the government, they have to agree to be sued first.
So let me get this straight. What you are saying is that because the governments saw the source code, they were able to find security holes in it that Microsoft had no intention of patching and exploit those security flaws to their benefit.
Am I right? And if so, how is this any different from anyone else who find a security hole in a microsoft system and exploits it before the public or microsoft knows? And yes, part of the NT source code is out there from back when MS servers were compromised.
Slashdot Mirror
Do common and ordinary words mean anything to you at all? well, then, lets just leave it at that and you can disappear.
No, I accused you are being a troll because that is what you were doing. I made a statement that is backed largely by public opinion, added my opinion to it. You came about demanding conditions that were entirely arbitrary and subjective and couldn't deal with me not wanting to go down that path. When I finally did go down and list some things, you completely ignored them to jump to your next line of idiocy. You gave no one a taste of anything except your extreme lunacy.
Do you really think you provoked me? I mean seriously, I spotted you as a troll from your second post onward, made that notice public knowledge and refused to dive into your crap citing the flaws in it. It would seem that in your mind you are the master of third grade recess. Well, truthfully, I don't really care, most of us have grown up and moved on. If you are demanding that you be allowed to act like an immature ass using third grade logic, then go back to the playground and stop your insistent mental masturbation before you get all sticky.
Your state might have had laws that were different then what they are now. They may have even been changed because of 911. However, the constitutionality of that was already set well before 2001.
It may be a situation here where your state actually forbid that type of behavior and then allowed it. The US constitution only restricts government to what it can do with a few clauses spelling out what it can't do. Your state could have been more restrictive in this sense.
It's basically the same in the US. The courts in the US already defined a valid stop as in what most people call a terry stop. If the cop doesn't have a legitimate reason, or as the Terry v. Ohio case spelled out, "on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest." they cannot demand your papers.
However, if they do have that, and it can be articulated to the judge, then chances are, it's the same as with in the UK, you will get arrested for not showing.
A lot of people watch reality shows in the US and one set of them are particularly dangerous. These are the cop's series of reality TV shows. They will run reruns of cops doing things that the courts have ruled unconstitutional and the only valid reasoning for this that I can think of, is to get the US population used to the idea that the cops can get away with it. In fact, most of their shows are designed in this way where a cop pulls someone over for speeding, someone ends up searching the trunk and finds 10 kilos of cocaine hiding under the spare tire. They do nothing to show how they got probably cause to search the trunk or anything and the only thing I can figure is that it was a set up stunt because they want people to think they can search your bunghole for speeding or not using your turn signal.
That sad part about it is, that people believe they can do this and give in.
Asking a passenger for ID didn't change around 2001. It had been that way for as long as I can remember and that has been well before 2001.
A cop, as supported by several challenges on the constitutionality of it that went in their favor, can identify anyone in the car, search the immediate area of the driver and any passengers, remove them from the car, frisk and handcuff them while waiting to finish with whatever caused the otherwise legal stop, all in the name of personal safety to the cop. They can't however, open glove boxes or enter locked areas of the car, nor can they take papers or other items that cannot be considered a weapon out of the personal possession under this for their safety exclusion without falling back to a traditional warrant and constitutionally protected search scheme.
A lot of people attempt to blame this all on 911. That's for the most part a fallacy. What happened after 2001 is that people started paying attention and pointing out stuff they were previously oblivious to. Most of the offended people who do this, was just coming of an age at the time in which they became politically aware. A lot of the older people who have already accepted this type of behavior still don't see anything wrong with it until it happens to them.
Perhaps if you made sense outside your own warped little mind, I could see that. However, you don't and I have attempted to end this thread more then 3 times only to have you jump back in with yet another lame ass claim of some sort that doesn't even begin to touch the topic at hand..
Go troll elsewhere. Try the third grade where your whit might be better matched.
lol.. You just couldn't resist trolling one more time could you.
well, then, lets just leave it at that and you can disappear.
Perhaps it's more of you imposing your trollish beliefs into conversations in a way that you inject fallacy within your objectiveness.
Now go away and troll elsewhere.
Did you see where I said we didn't go into the war trying to win? You attempt to bring a comparison to WWII but fail because in WWII, we not only bombed Germany and the Axis home front, we invaded and destroyed their ability to make war. When we took an area in WWII, we held it until the lines passed so far in front of it, that it wasn't necessary. In Vietnam, we wasted most of those bombs and shells on the people transporting supplies. We bombed the north but nothing substantial as a lot of their ability to wage war was created in other countries. And we certainly didn't invade the north in order to seize their government ordering the war.
They are two completely different beasts and the differences, some of which you pointed out, support my concept.
lol.. So are you attempting to say that because we had no use for anything in Vietnam, we should overlook a communist take over that would have also taken over most of Europe had NATO not stepped in and told Russia to stop?
In the very least, how are we going to get anything we want from any country that does have something we need if we sit back and ignore the cries for help from those countries that don't have anything we need?
It was not a civil war. I wish you idiots would learn some real fucking history. That is unless you count 1 million people sneaking across the border, staging, then attempting to overthrow the government a civil war. the rest of your drivel is more obsolete BS surrounding your incorrect assumptions on history.
Vietnam was a French territory from 1885 or so up until 1954 with the exception of about 6 months in 1945 when it was under control of the Japanese. Communists in the north had resisted the french and gained support from the communists of the world in about 1941 and broke free from french control. The south remained a colony of France until 1954 when France gave out as their colonial administration was dissolved in the Geneva Conference of 1954. Vietnam was in effect, two separate countries at this time and was not a country at all for almost 100 years prior. The UN recognized both countries as separate entities, both with separate and independent sovereignty.
With support from Russia and China (after Comecon orchestrated the communist overthrow in china), They funded and armed North Vietnam with the intent of expanding into south Vietnam in an attempt to expand communism.
Now here is the part you should pay particular attention to. Communism, if created from the inside out at the will of the people, is fine and dandy. But you cannot say it is the will of the people who outsiders come into the country and take arms in order to force a revolution. It's little more then the idiot communist who attempted to overthrow the US government back in 1919. And how did we stop that? We deported members of the communist part USA who were not natural born citizens.
Your entire concept is polluted with ignorance and re
That's true in the US to the extent that the US constitution or law passed by congress bars the US government from infringing those rights. It's probably set that way in Germany because of the history of events leading up to WWII. If you could sue for wrong, a lot of things that were done might have been stopped (assuming the government would listen to the rulings and the courts weren't stacked with cronyism rubber stamping the current trends).
It does appear to be a common law thing. However, the government of the US, through either the Constitution, or laws passed, has waived it's immunity rights in a lot of areas. The US attempted to create a limited federal government that was granted abilities as long as they didn't encroach on freedoms blocked by the constitution.
That has long been lost in the shuffle of politics and it's back to the right of kings so to say in which people have manipulated the government and constitutional interpretations to invoke some idea of limitless government capable of everything and anything. In this, you see things happen that makes us all wonder.
Well, they did. This is because the US constitution says we are free from all unreasonable searches and seizures and those searches will be supported by probably cause and a warrant. This was the standing needed to sue against the government. However, the court rules that as a right of sovereignty, protecting and controlling what passed through the borders override the US constitution.
No, take that as meaning the term worthwhile is subjective and is a requirement that I never placed when making the comment. I was avoiding it because it will just turn into a flame war from someone who is arguable trolling.
I think you got it without realizing it. Your requirement is arbitrary and subjective. Because you see, in my subjective world, I think St. Peter would appreciate the good that was done by removing the 500k people who were basically bad people for the most part.
Do you see how arbitrary and subjective that is? You made it sound like a christian saint would disagree with the killing of people from some other religion who is attempting to kill his religion's people. And the economy got shot to hell because they scammers and asshats making it difficult for the little people finally got taken down.
Do I need to get more subjective in this analysis? I mean seriously, it's nothing more at this point then what you want to see as good and bad verses what I want to see as good and bad. If this is the leg you are trying to stand on, then go troll somewhere else.
It's still a bigger achievement then most of us will ever accomplish. You are the one placing the arbitrary meaningful qualification to it.
If you don't believe me, ask yourself which sounds better on a job application for the last 8 years of employment. I was president of the United States of America, verses, I flipped burgers at burger town while living in mom's basement and going on line to argue and complain about everything that is wrong in this world.
Nuff said.
Lol.. He became president didn't he? I mean that's a lot more then most of us will ever do in our lifetime.
In the first continental congress of the newly formed United States of America, they passed a law allowing warrant-less searches at the borders. This was upheld by the US supreme court as being necessary as a right of sovereignty.
So the concept of the country above the law has existed even back then. The point being, the US cannot have blurred the concept of the rule of law so much -- all in the name of "national security" (read: corruption). It already existed in this form for the entire life of the US and nothing concerning national security or the modern day corruption has changed that. It's little more then a poetic dream to think it was any different at any time the US has been in existence concerning sovereign immunity.
It could get worse. Suppose someone is looking to get married and decide to do a check on who they are marrying.
The article claims "Gotham Dating Partners hoped to position itself as a dating service as well as a "public information source" for individuals and corporations needing accurate information on US citizens, Jordan said."
So what happens when their accurate information scraped from the web claims your wife to be- used to be a stripper in Las Vegas who has been married 5 times in 5 years to rich doctors who died of mysterious causes because her maiden name matches the maiden name of someone like that?
I can so a plethroa of problems arising from this. Not only because they will get things wrong, but because people like to provide fake information to remain anonymous on the interweb and there is no telling what is real or not.
If only I had mod points...
However, I think your whit might be lost on the younger crowd who probably weren't alive when Jeffrey Dahmner and Lizzie Borden were central figures in the news.
Perhaps I'm wrong. Here's to hoping I am.
I agree with you.. Besides, how many people in the US alone share the same names? Are there going to be ten different John Smith profiles? And which John Smith profile are they going to attach to John Smith of Seattle Washington who just moves there and now resides in a town along with 5 or more other john smiths already living there.
I can see it now, John Smith's profile would read like a jesus freak, necrophiliac, race car driver, drug user set out to kill cops, who was hurt in gym class yesterday playing dodge ball. Getting some of those things ascribed to me would pretty much piss me off- not to mention harm you in future job searches if they decide to make this information available to anyone concerned as the article mentions.
I submit that the perception of the rule of law you are inferring never existed in the first place.
The concept of sovereign immunity and the right of sovereignty was around long before the US became a country and it is evident in some of our very first laws passed as supported by constitutional challenges to them. Furthermore, it's built into our legal system in the sense of needing some sort of standing to sue.
Take a look at this.
And BTW, most people I have seen who has analyzed the code, see sloppy comments and otherwise poor programing habits but not really anything necessarily wrong with the available code that would ascribe malicious or lax security goals.
The problem with your liability theory is that if the feds had the same source code the MS has had all along, then anything they find that MS doesn't know about would indicate a lack of due diligence on MS's side to protect their operating code.
What I mean is, if you produce a piece of crap and call it a bacon sandwich, and I get access to that bacon sandwich's raw ingredients and cause something to happen where everyone see it as a piece of crap, as long as you have the same if not more information about that piece of crap then I do, then it's up to you to make it actually into the bacon sandwich that you are selling. If I find security holes, you should have been able to find security holes. If I exploit those holes, unless you pacth them, then you failed to prevent those security holes from being exploited.
In the end, from a courts perspective, what will happen is that because you failed to stop those security holes from being exploited, then you failed to show you didn't want them exploited. Sure, you don't want virus infesting your baby, but this is a little different. You are attempting to show that one entity harmed another by doing something that you didn't know could be done. Then you are saying that they were able to do this because they had access to the same stuff you had access to all along. The obvious answer to this is, if you had the same access and didn't want the code to be exploited, then you should have locked it down.
This is why I brought up a zero day flaw. If a white hat researcher finds a flaw, notifies MS about it, then releases the information to the public 6 months later when it hasn't been fixed only to find people taking advantage of the security flaw, does anyone have a right to sue anyone else? Well, the answer is no. And I don't think this is any different.
Most likely because it wasn't invented yet and it wasn't called that yet.
Besides, how do you know there wasn't one parked in the shade of an apple tree? Just because the books didn't talk about it doesn't mean it wasn't so.. Well outside the obvious of when it was invented.
Actually, do you have a point somewhere that I missed?
You lose a war when the enemy beats you. There is a difference. Giving up and going home isn't exactly losing a war. It's not a win, but it's not losing
either.
The problem was we weren't fighting a war to begin with and the American public saw that with all the news footage of the war streaming into their living rooms. We were only attempting to help a country maintain control of it's territory.
And you say thank god as if that was a good thing. Tell me, was it a good thing to allow tons of people to get murdered in for the ideals of communism? Was it a good thing to allow millions basically become slaves to an ideal they didn't support?
Don't forget sovereign immunity.
The government is immune from all lawsuits unless it authorizes them somehow by law or the constitution provides something overriding that concept. For the majority of lawsuits against the government, they have to agree to be sued first.
So let me get this straight. What you are saying is that because the governments saw the source code, they were able to find security holes in it that Microsoft had no intention of patching and exploit those security flaws to their benefit.
Am I right? And if so, how is this any different from anyone else who find a security hole in a microsoft system and exploits it before the public or microsoft knows? And yes, part of the NT source code is out there from back when MS servers were compromised.
I mean look up zero day security flaws.
Right, and if God wanted us to fly, he would have gave us wings instead of the ability to create them and make flying machines we can fit into.