I have a few minor problems with your logic. Is this a terroist organization or a suspected terroist organization? I would be very worried if it became a crime to tell someone that was a suspect of a crime that they are a suspect of a crime. As your statement stands, it gives the goverment the right to sieze the phone records of anyone suspected of talking to a suspect in order to finds out who the suspect is. If they don't know who you were talking to, how can they get enough proof that you were talking to someone that is a suspect to get a warrent. This argument should not be about Freedom of Press, but about innocent until proven guilty, No search and siezure of papers or effects, and guilt by suspected association.
(tin foil hat on)
Ever notice the magnetic strip that is in all US paper money now
"I would like to add $50 to this card, do you take quarters?"
(tin foil hat off)
No, it is a lot more like the locksmith telling you to get a new door, one that you can only get keys from him, because it has better security, and it looks pretty.
Agreed - I had a friend kick off a jury for telling them he didn't see the words "except a convicted felon" near the term "right to bare arms" I was a little disturbed with this, because I feel that a jury has the right to rule against a law as well as against a suspect, but if you kick everyone off that might disagree your weighting the system in your favor.
So mr. W. doesn't want other people digging into all the personal information that he feels should be kept secret. Wouldn't it be nice to tell the NSA that they can't investigate you because they don't have the clearanc^H^H^H^H^H^H^H constitutional right.
The need to use a gun, is when your goverment starts passing laws that restrict the rights of people suspected of a crime instead of convicted. That is why the US constitution protects the rights to own a gun. It should be a last resort after all political channels have failed, but there may be a real need to use one some day.
Yes they did. You release an "anti-virus" program that deletes all exe and dll files. Every computer that downloads this "patch" can no longer be used as a zombie machine. If a third party can not look at the code before it is realesed, then the "zombie" machines never have a chance to protect against this anti-virus patch.
Would you please show me where the constitution states that you lose your rights when the goverment has to play nanny? This is something that has been spoon feed to every student for several years and now that the students have grown up, it is just accepted as fact. If the school wants to search a cell phone, they can call a parent or legal guardian, and that person can decide if they want to submit to a volentary search or require a warrent as per the Constitution. You take away that step, and you now have an official that is playing judge, jury, and exicutioner. The student has no line of defense. If there was a seperate part of the school system to determin this, I would be okay, but your only chance is to go to the school board who are the ones that make the policy. This is like asking congress if the law they just passed is constitutional.
Why do I keep comparing this to a nattional goverment when it is "just a school"? Because we send our children to school to learn. I don't want my children to learn that they have to bend over and take it, just because someone in the goverment told them they have the right to tell them what to do. I want them to learn to question thier rights when they are being trampled on. The constitution applies to all branches of goverment. Parents are free to violate there childrens civil rights. A parent can search a childs belongings. A parent may enforce free speech restrictions. A goverment employee should not be empowered with these rights, unless the parents are determined unfit, and the child is placed in the custody of the state. Going to school does not place the children in the custody of the state! If there is any problem that would involve violating civil rights, it needs to be addressed through the parent.
And for that I am thankfull. I like the concept of FreeDos and have tinkered with it several times in the past. On the latest trial I set up a full system to do nothing but play all the old dos games I had collecting dust. After getting everything setup, then I realized that the disk read/writes were too slow to be of any use. I left it doing a copy overnight and thought something was broke with the computer when it was only 5% done the next morning. I setup the machine to run win98 with dosbox. When running dosbox, it uses the natives OS to cache the read/writes making it usable. Using win98 let me install the older windows games too. If they get the disk read/writes working, I have several old dos programs at work that I would like to try and run on it. I am hoping that it will let me use hardware that only has dos drivers. Until then linux/windows with dosbox is a much better option for most pure software applications.
I can't believe he just doesn't understand that the internet is the little blue "e" next to my computer, not some mystical "tube". A tube doesn't look anything like my little e. He need to get a clue.
I just feel sorry for the guy that sent the senator his internet and doesn't have his "e" anynmore to click on and look at the new pictures that the grandkids sent him.
I can't tell you how many people I have help with a computer problem think that little blue E is the internet. If the icon gets moved they think the computer is no longer on the internet. I have even had people that would open IE before checking mail, because they knew they couldn't check their email unless they were "on the internet" That is what microsoft has been shooting for since the release of IE, and except for a few minor fines, it worked. Now it is time to try it with everything else.
And in that they won. They have proven that even if there is nothing, that the legal status of linux would allow anyone with enough time and money to hold anyone using it up in court for years. Costing million of dollars.
"Bottom line, free speech doesn't give people the freedom to say "kill XXX""
Let's break some free speech laws just for the hell of it:
Soldiers, your command is to "kill the enemy troops" guarding the bunker.
I need to "kill process 932" before my computer crashes.
We the jury "sentence the defendant to death"
We need to "kill Osama Bin Laden" for what he has done.
If you have to use a gun while defending a home invasion "shoot to kill" not mame.
The goverment has turned into a dictatorship, we need to "kill the dictator".
Your right, I don't find any of those too funny. We better ban them.
The constitution was not written to allow you to talk about sports and soap operas. It was written to defend you from your own goverment. The right given were given to be used against the goverment if needed. If you start deniging those rights bases on, "it's not funny" instead of it could be harmful to innocents then you lose those rights for the purpose it was intended.
In your example they found something suspicious, investigated it, found a valid threat, and prosucuted based on that threat. In the story they kind of left out the middle two. When you are able to punish someone for being suspicious it opens a whole can of worms. The kind of worms that just might make someone resent authority. Being punished without just cause is a pretty good reason to start a rebelion.
They just had that problem in Houston. I lawyer on a DWI case noticed that the audio kept dropping from the in car recorder every time that the officer had to explain that the suspect was slurring his speach right there. The lawyer got a judge to allow him to look at all the previous tapes made by that officer. If it was an expensive car with a not to positive case, the audio cut out. If it was definately a DWI, or a lower priced car, the audio was fine. The officer doubled his salary be having to sit in court collecting overtime for all the cases that suspects had enough money to defend themselves from bogus DWI charges.
Hello FRIEND,
I am a former recording excutive from Spain. Due to a recent change in our goverment I am unable to obtain the blank CDs from the LARGE wharehouse that my family owns. If you, being a foriegn Citzen would be kind enough to let me ship the CDs to your personal post office box. I would be more than willing to give you 10% of the CDs once they have been recorder. please respond IMMEDIATELY. Timing is of Most importance.
I think this belongs under YRO because as far as I can tell, the BSA is not a governing authority. What gives them the right to raid a private business and search their computer for information. Just because someone is most likely guilty, does not deny them the right to a fair governing system.
I would love to be able to search anyones computer because they might contain a piece of intellectual property that I don't have the rights to, but a friend of mine that does wants me to check on.
That is the most contradictory argument I have ever heard. I think that you got it 100% accurate, it is the problem with the court ruling. If it now takes away the scholarship that allows the person to go to school, it can't be argued that it "is not a required part of the educational mission"
This right after they declare that it is against the user agreement to use any type of ad blocking software on your computer. Not when viewing the site, but on your computer.
No, It is more like having an open field without a "no tresspassing" sign. If you do not want people to use it, post a notice. A door on a personal residenace is a implied notice.
How do you think the coffee shop would feel if no one entered their premises because the door was closed but not locked. Might not be too good for business.
It would be great if that is what the law did, but it is a lot like solving drunk driving by taking away everyone's car. The law stipulates that said games will be pulled from shelves in order to keep them away from said minors.
I would also like to know what is illeagal before I am standing in front of a Judge not after.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a few minor problems with your logic. Is this a terroist organization or a suspected terroist organization? I would be very worried if it became a crime to tell someone that was a suspect of a crime that they are a suspect of a crime. As your statement stands, it gives the goverment the right to sieze the phone records of anyone suspected of talking to a suspect in order to finds out who the suspect is. If they don't know who you were talking to, how can they get enough proof that you were talking to someone that is a suspect to get a warrent. This argument should not be about Freedom of Press, but about innocent until proven guilty, No search and siezure of papers or effects, and guilt by suspected association.
(tin foil hat on)
Ever notice the magnetic strip that is in all US paper money now
"I would like to add $50 to this card, do you take quarters?"
(tin foil hat off)
No, it is a lot more like the locksmith telling you to get a new door, one that you can only get keys from him, because it has better security, and it looks pretty.
Agreed - I had a friend kick off a jury for telling them he didn't see the words "except a convicted felon" near the term "right to bare arms" I was a little disturbed with this, because I feel that a jury has the right to rule against a law as well as against a suspect, but if you kick everyone off that might disagree your weighting the system in your favor.
So mr. W. doesn't want other people digging into all the personal information that he feels should be kept secret. Wouldn't it be nice to tell the NSA that they can't investigate you because they don't have the clearanc^H^H^H^H^H^H^H constitutional right.
The need to use a gun, is when your goverment starts passing laws that restrict the rights of people suspected of a crime instead of convicted. That is why the US constitution protects the rights to own a gun. It should be a last resort after all political channels have failed, but there may be a real need to use one some day.
Yes they did. You release an "anti-virus" program that deletes all exe and dll files. Every computer that downloads this "patch" can no longer be used as a zombie machine. If a third party can not look at the code before it is realesed, then the "zombie" machines never have a chance to protect against this anti-virus patch.
I guess this means the playstation 5 won't be backwards compatible with PS3 games?
Would you please show me where the constitution states that you lose your rights when the goverment has to play nanny? This is something that has been spoon feed to every student for several years and now that the students have grown up, it is just accepted as fact. If the school wants to search a cell phone, they can call a parent or legal guardian, and that person can decide if they want to submit to a volentary search or require a warrent as per the Constitution.
You take away that step, and you now have an official that is playing judge, jury, and exicutioner. The student has no line of defense. If there was a seperate part of the school system to determin this, I would be okay, but your only chance is to go to the school board who are the ones that make the policy. This is like asking congress if the law they just passed is constitutional.
Why do I keep comparing this to a nattional goverment when it is "just a school"? Because we send our children to school to learn. I don't want my children to learn that they have to bend over and take it, just because someone in the goverment told them they have the right to tell them what to do. I want them to learn to question thier rights when they are being trampled on.
The constitution applies to all branches of goverment. Parents are free to violate there childrens civil rights. A parent can search a childs belongings. A parent may enforce free speech restrictions. A goverment employee should not be empowered with these rights, unless the parents are determined unfit, and the child is placed in the custody of the state. Going to school does not place the children in the custody of the state! If there is any problem that would involve violating civil rights, it needs to be addressed through the parent.
Networking is the part where you tell all your friends which sever to log on so you can group.
"It's doubtful eBay can come back with a reasonable, non-malicious explanation "
One Word:
BETA
And for that I am thankfull. I like the concept of FreeDos and have tinkered with it several times in the past. On the latest trial I set up a full system to do nothing but play all the old dos games I had collecting dust. After getting everything setup, then I realized that the disk read/writes were too slow to be of any use. I left it doing a copy overnight and thought something was broke with the computer when it was only 5% done the next morning. I setup the machine to run win98 with dosbox. When running dosbox, it uses the natives OS to cache the read/writes making it usable. Using win98 let me install the older windows games too. If they get the disk read/writes working, I have several old dos programs at work that I would like to try and run on it. I am hoping that it will let me use hardware that only has dos drivers. Until then linux/windows with dosbox is a much better option for most pure software applications.
I can't believe he just doesn't understand that the internet is the little blue "e" next to my computer, not some mystical "tube". A tube doesn't look anything like my little e. He need to get a clue.
I just feel sorry for the guy that sent the senator his internet and doesn't have his "e" anynmore to click on and look at the new pictures that the grandkids sent him.
I can't tell you how many people I have help with a computer problem think that little blue E is the internet. If the icon gets moved they think the computer is no longer on the internet. I have even had people that would open IE before checking mail, because they knew they couldn't check their email unless they were "on the internet" That is what microsoft has been shooting for since the release of IE, and except for a few minor fines, it worked. Now it is time to try it with everything else.
And in that they won. They have proven that even if there is nothing, that the legal status of linux would allow anyone with enough time and money to hold anyone using it up in court for years. Costing million of dollars.
"Bottom line, free speech doesn't give people the freedom to say "kill XXX""
Let's break some free speech laws just for the hell of it:
Soldiers, your command is to "kill the enemy troops" guarding the bunker.
I need to "kill process 932" before my computer crashes.
We the jury "sentence the defendant to death"
We need to "kill Osama Bin Laden" for what he has done.
If you have to use a gun while defending a home invasion "shoot to kill" not mame.
The goverment has turned into a dictatorship, we need to "kill the dictator".
Your right, I don't find any of those too funny. We better ban them.
The constitution was not written to allow you to talk about sports and soap operas. It was written to defend you from your own goverment. The right given were given to be used against the goverment if needed. If you start deniging those rights bases on, "it's not funny" instead of it could be harmful to innocents then you lose those rights for the purpose it was intended.
In your example they found something suspicious, investigated it, found a valid threat, and prosucuted based on that threat. In the story they kind of left out the middle two. When you are able to punish someone for being suspicious it opens a whole can of worms. The kind of worms that just might make someone resent authority. Being punished without just cause is a pretty good reason to start a rebelion.
They just had that problem in Houston. I lawyer on a DWI case noticed that the audio kept dropping from the in car recorder every time that the officer had to explain that the suspect was slurring his speach right there. The lawyer got a judge to allow him to look at all the previous tapes made by that officer. If it was an expensive car with a not to positive case, the audio cut out. If it was definately a DWI, or a lower priced car, the audio was fine. The officer doubled his salary be having to sit in court collecting overtime for all the cases that suspects had enough money to defend themselves from bogus DWI charges.
Hello FRIEND, I am a former recording excutive from Spain. Due to a recent change in our goverment I am unable to obtain the blank CDs from the LARGE wharehouse that my family owns. If you, being a foriegn Citzen would be kind enough to let me ship the CDs to your personal post office box. I would be more than willing to give you 10% of the CDs once they have been recorder. please respond IMMEDIATELY. Timing is of Most importance.
Thank YOu in advance for you help Friend.
I think this belongs under YRO because as far as I can tell, the BSA is not a governing authority. What gives them the right to raid a private business and search their computer for information. Just because someone is most likely guilty, does not deny them the right to a fair governing system.
I would love to be able to search anyones computer because they might contain a piece of intellectual property that I don't have the rights to, but a friend of mine that does wants me to check on.
That is the most contradictory argument I have ever heard. I think that you got it 100% accurate, it is the problem with the court ruling. If it now takes away the scholarship that allows the person to go to school, it can't be argued that it "is not a required part of the educational mission"
This right after they declare that it is against the user agreement to use any type of ad blocking software on your computer. Not when viewing the site, but on your computer.
Do they consider antivirus as an ad blocker now?
No, It is more like having an open field without a "no tresspassing" sign. If you do not want people to use it, post a notice. A door on a personal residenace is a implied notice.
How do you think the coffee shop would feel if no one entered their premises because the door was closed but not locked. Might not be too good for business.
It would be great if that is what the law did, but it is a lot like solving drunk driving by taking away everyone's car. The law stipulates that said games will be pulled from shelves in order to keep them away from said minors.
I would also like to know what is illeagal before I am standing in front of a Judge not after.
"All your base are belong to us!"