My God, did you bother to read anything before you posted?
Let's try using some common sense:
The First Amendment also provides journalists with a limited privilege not to disclose their sources or information to litigants who seek to use that information in court. In Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), the Supreme Court held that reporters did not have a privilege to refuse to answer a grand jury's questions that directly related to criminal conduct that the journalists observed and wrote about.
However, the court's opinion noted that news gathering does have First Amendment protections, and many lower courts have applied a qualified First Amendment privilege to situations in which the need for the journalist's information was less compelling than in Branzburg. These courts require litigants to prove that the material sought is relevant to their claim, necessary to the maintenance of the claim, and unavailable from other sources. In addition, more than half of the states have adopted statutes called "Shield Laws," which provide a similar privilege to journalists. http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0297/ijde/g oodale.htm
Now, let's get to your flawed comment:
He did not witness any of the crimes being investigated
He did not video tape any of the crimes being investigated
and let me fix your analogy:
You are at a protest. I beat you up. Someone standing nearby videos the protest but not the assault. The person videotaping it then sells footage of the protest to networks. You go to the police. The police are barred by state law from asking for the video, so the federal government steps in. The person videotaping refuses, because he has no evidence of the crime, did not witness the crime and feels that the investigation is a witch hunt.
Slimy is trying to turn journalists into surveillance cameras for the government.
do we hate Bush because he's spending too much money on the war, or because he didn't finance it enough to let the troops do their job? Both.
We are spending too much on this war. Remember when members of the Bush administration promised that this war would cost no more than two billion dollars or maybe even pay for itself? The one guy that came out and said $200 billion was fired. We are now around $365 billion http://costofwar.com/.
He also isn't funding the war enough, troops were/are being served rotten food http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121903D.shtml, they don't have the equipment they need and when they come home, they are not getting the health care they need.
Collecting DNA just because you were arrested isn't insane, it's law (here in America).
here is an article written before the bill passed: Bill Would Permit DNA Collection From All Those Arrested Suspects arrested or detained by federal authorities could be forced to provide samples of their DNA that would be recorded in a central database under a provision of a Senate bill to expand government collection of personal data. ...
The provision, co-sponsored by Kyl and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), does not require the government to automatically remove the DNA data of people who are never convicted. Instead, those arrested or detained would have to petition to have their information removed from the database after their cases were resolved.
And that bill was passed. Just take the bill number (H.R.3402) and plug it into the Library of Congress' bill finder thingy. It was originally passed in the Senate as S.1197, but the House bill is the final version. In the House bill, the portion is Title X, sections 1001-1005
http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/yankee-gro upsunbelt-2006-server.html
if you read that article: Windows Server 2003 and Red Hat Linux with customizations and Novell SuSE Linux all reported roughly equivalent per server, per year outage times of just under 800 minutes. Surprisingly, Red Hat Enterprise Linux standard distribution users reported said they experienced 900 minutes of per server, per year.
I guess that is wherer the 20% more uptime thing is comming from.
and here is another factiod: Windows 2000 Server and Windows Server 2003 recorded the greatest number of Tier 1 Reliability related incidents -- nearly 3 incidents per server, per year for Windows 2000 Server and 2.5 Tier 1 reliability incidents for each Windows Server 2003 system annually. Still, the actual number does not vary substantially from rival platforms.
Reading some of their legal paperwork, they make it sound like they own unix... what if they really think they own atleast part of every flavor of unix?
When I first heard of this case back in March I thought SCO was trying for a quick settlment and I can't believe that they are still in business
I remember reading that an old version of cybersitter did allow filtering content and removing offensive words. If I remember correctly, cybersitter removed this feature in newer releases and just started blocking the page outright because they ran into problems about removing words from quotes.
It is my understanding that Class action lawsuits are generally done to the benefit of the lawyers filing the complaint, as they are the one's that usually walk away with most of the $. This is probably a case of some lawyers reading recent security experts statements to the effect that a homogony of computers hurts security, hoping that Microsoft would rather settle for a relatively small sum of cash than a lengthy court battle, and praying that Microsoft's reputation for security would tip the scales in their favor. I do not believe that anything will come of this; Microsoft seems to have its bases covered in respect to liability.
Of course I also thought the SCO v. IBM case would go nowhere too.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's try using some common sense: The First Amendment also provides journalists with a limited privilege not to disclose their sources or information to litigants who seek to use that information in court. In Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), the Supreme Court held that reporters did not have a privilege to refuse to answer a grand jury's questions that directly related to criminal conduct that the journalists observed and wrote about. However, the court's opinion noted that news gathering does have First Amendment protections, and many lower courts have applied a qualified First Amendment privilege to situations in which the need for the journalist's information was less compelling than in Branzburg. These courts require litigants to prove that the material sought is relevant to their claim, necessary to the maintenance of the claim, and unavailable from other sources. In addition, more than half of the states have adopted statutes called "Shield Laws," which provide a similar privilege to journalists. http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0297/ijde/
Now, let's get to your flawed comment:
He did not witness any of the crimes being investigated
He did not video tape any of the crimes being investigated
and let me fix your analogy:
You are at a protest. I beat you up. Someone standing nearby videos the protest but not the assault. The person videotaping it then sells footage of the protest to networks. You go to the police. The police are barred by state law from asking for the video, so the federal government steps in. The person videotaping refuses, because he has no evidence of the crime, did not witness the crime and feels that the investigation is a witch hunt.
Slimy is trying to turn journalists into surveillance cameras for the government.
Collecting DNA just because you were arrested isn't insane, it's law (here in America). here is an article written before the bill passed:
...
Bill Would Permit DNA Collection From All Those Arrested
Suspects arrested or detained by federal authorities could be forced to provide samples of their DNA that would be recorded in a central database under a provision of a Senate bill to expand government collection of personal data.
The provision, co-sponsored by Kyl and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), does not require the government to automatically remove the DNA data of people who are never convicted. Instead, those arrested or detained would have to petition to have their information removed from the database after their cases were resolved.
And that bill was passed. Just take the bill number (H.R.3402) and plug it into the Library of Congress' bill finder thingy. It was originally passed in the Senate as S.1197, but the House bill is the final version. In the House bill, the portion is Title X, sections 1001-1005
http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/yankee-gro upsunbelt-2006-server.html
if you read that article:
Windows Server 2003 and Red Hat Linux with customizations and Novell SuSE Linux all reported roughly equivalent per server, per year outage times of just under 800 minutes. Surprisingly, Red Hat Enterprise Linux standard distribution users reported said they experienced 900 minutes of per server, per year.
I guess that is wherer the 20% more uptime thing is comming from.
and here is another factiod:
Windows 2000 Server and Windows Server 2003 recorded the greatest number of Tier 1 Reliability related incidents -- nearly 3 incidents per server, per year for Windows 2000 Server and 2.5 Tier 1 reliability incidents for each Windows Server 2003 system annually. Still, the actual number does not vary substantially from rival platforms.
When I first heard of this case back in March I thought SCO was trying for a quick settlment and I can't believe that they are still in business
I remember reading that an old version of cybersitter did allow filtering content and removing offensive words. If I remember correctly, cybersitter removed this feature in newer releases and just started blocking the page outright because they ran into problems about removing words from quotes.
I think www.peacefire.org may have more info on that feature
It is my understanding that Class action lawsuits are generally done to the benefit of the lawyers filing the complaint, as they are the one's that usually walk away with most of the $. This is probably a case of some lawyers reading recent security experts statements to the effect that a homogony of computers hurts security, hoping that Microsoft would rather settle for a relatively small sum of cash than a lengthy court battle, and praying that Microsoft's reputation for security would tip the scales in their favor. I do not believe that anything will come of this; Microsoft seems to have its bases covered in respect to liability.
Of course I also thought the SCO v. IBM case would go nowhere too.
Also - IANAL