Unless you're carrying something like the Anarchist Cookbook, it seems unlikely that additional suspicion should be warranted. Given this time of year, it seems ironic that security would be judging others by the cover (and content) of their books rather than their actual threat, if any existed at all.
This was never about national security, it's all about watching people especially those who have the opposite political views as the watchers.
You are half correct. You are forgetting that a significant percentage of crime is not significantly pre-meditated (i.e snatch and grabs). Camera's MAY have some effectiveness reducing these crimes of opportunity.
Why would CCTVs have much of an impact on impulsive crimes? CCTVs aren't that good at solving crimes. If a criminal gets away with a crime once they are more likely to do it again under the same circumstances. Victims on the other hand will feel safer and therefore wouldn't take as many appropriate steps to prevent a crime.
Some other folks have made references to gun stats, which reminds me quite a bit about this article. Most stories involving guns come at it from one angle or another, trying to make some point. Usually the press offers up the dangers of not enough gun control. The response to this is a listing of the dangers of gun control by groups like the NRA. What we rarely get is a substantial break down of the real effects of weapons in our society. What happened to the city that instituted strong gun control measures? Did the murder rate drop as control advocates suggest? Did other types of crime rise as gun rights advocates suggest? How about what happens when gun controls are relaxed, like instituting concealed carry laws?
When Florida liberalized gun laws, making it easier to conceal carry, homicides went down:
"In 1987, when Florida enacted such legislation, critics warned that the 'Sunshine State' would become the 'Gunshine State.' Contrary to their predictions, homicide rates dropped faster than the national average. Further, through 1997, only one permit holder out of the over 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide. (Source: Kleck, Gary Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 370. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.) If the rest of the country behaved as Florida's permit holders did, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate in the world."
Loss of privacy? A very small price to pay for catching and deterring drunk drivers.
To you maybe but I value liberty, of which privacy is one, more than I value "feeling safe". As Benjamin Franklin once said, paraphrasing here, "anyone willing to give up a little liberty for safety will neither get nor deserve either."
Maybe they do not help in deterring crime but I wonder if they help get convictions
TFA says four paragraphs down "In fact, four out of five of the boroughs with the most cameras have a record of solving crime that is below average. " If they aren't solving crimes then they aren't getting convictions either.
cities with effective gun bans are the worst in crime, see DC and Chicago.)
Or see Hong Kong, effective gun control, low crime. Cities in the US with gun control have a hopeless problem preventing guns coming in from less-restricted parts of the country. Your examples could as easlily argue for national restrictions.
However those places where people are allowed to carry, even concealed carry, see drops in crime. See the University of Chicago study "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns". Or take what happened in Florida after Liberalized Concealed Carry Laws were passed. The homicide rate in Florida dropped faster than the drop in the country after they were passed. And of more than 350,000 permits being issued only one person with a permit was convicted of homicide.
Fact is is "faith" was used theologically after 32 years after it was first used and 50 years went by before being used in religion.
This sentence isn't even readable, try again.
It seems you need to work on your comprehension. But to make it more comprehensible to you. let me try to explain it like this. It was 32 years after it's first use before it was used theologically, and another 28 years pasted before being used in a religious context. First use = X, first theological use = X+32, and first religious use = X+50. I'm wondering if you can understand it that way.
Of course, in their bankruptcy filings, SCO doesn't acknowledge that they owe Novell anything... presumably under the premise that nothing is owing until the judge declares so
The judge has already ruled SCO owes Novell, all that needs to be determined is how much. "SCO's potential death blow came in a ruling last month, as Judge Dale Kimball of Utah's U.S. District Court ruled that Novell still owned the Unix and UnixWare copyrights that formed the basis of SCO's grievance. Kimball's order is likely to cripple SCO's flagship Linux case, the extensive complaint against IBM it filed in 2003."
I believe the judge already has ruled the money is Novell's, what needs to be determined is how much money Novell is going to get.
How could that have happened? The trial hasn't occurred yet. We are still in pre-trial. The only thing the judge has ruled on is what evidence will be admitted at trial to determine the facts.
Here goes:
"SCO claims it owns all copyrights over Unix and that Linux infringes on those copyrights. In what were widely seen as bet-the-company moves, SCO, beginning in 2003, launched a series of lawsuits against rivals and customers claiming their use of Linux was violating the copyrights. The campaign was dealt a crushing blow on Aug. 10 when federal court Judge Dale Kimball ruled that Novell, and not SCO, owns the copyrights to Unix."
"As a result, Kimball said that SCO must remit to Novell a portion of the fees it has collected from selling Unix licenses -- mostly to Sun and Microsoft. That could amount to as much as $25 million. The total is to be decided at a trial that's set to start today. The case is scheduled to proceed as a bench trial, meaning that Kimball -- not a jury -- will decide the outcome."
There's what judge Kimball said. Then this:
"Novell and SCO were slated to begin trial yesterday to determine the amount SCO would need to fork over, but SCO's last-minute bankruptcy filing prompted a postponement of the Novell trial."
I don't know whether the assets are just given to Novell, or if they are sold off and Novell gets the proceeds. I suspect they'll be sold - it is the only real way to determine the value of assets such as the Unix IP.
The UNIX IPs can't be sold, Novell owns them not SCO. SCO only has the right to sale licenses.
SCO was Novell's agent and therefore had the right to handle Novell's money, it is up to the judge to interpret the contract and determine if SCO violated its fiduciary duty and the terms of the contract. Although I would guess the judge is overwhelmingly going to side with Novell.
I believe the judge already has ruled the money is Novell's, what needs to be determined is how much money Novell is going to get.
Doesn't chapeter 11 bankruptacy protect SCO from giving Novel any money?
Chapter 11 only protects assets, property owned so to speak. The money that SCO never gave to Novell is Novell's not SCO's. SCO was supposed to give all of the money they were paid for licenses to Novell then Novell would give SCO 5% of the money back. The money was Novell's property.
but if they do find out and your local laws prohibit it then you could be in real trouble. Especially if your jury-rigged setup ends up shocking a repairman.
Which is why you use equipment that can island, disconnect from the powerlines yet still provide electricity locally.
This is an issue with Lloyds insurance, the liability of the insurance underwriters is effectivly unlimited.
Lloyds of London was established in 1688, more than 80 years after both East India companies were incorporated. Swiss Re, the world's largest reinsurer, was established in 1862 60 years after the East India companies. And as for liability, just as with other insurance policies, reinsurers are only liable for the amount covered in the policy. Also reinsurers buy insurance as well.
At the time $100 might well be a lot for a "small investor", it might even be perfectly possible for a person to hold only one share/stock for $1.
I just used "$1000" as an example, dollars didn't even exist then. Even the first Swiss frank dates from 1798. It's only been recently that there has been standard widely used money for buying or trading. Before 1798 cantons in Switzerland had their own money, as did most other places. And yes, even now stocks can be bought cheaply, the penny stocks. Capable, and maybe lucky, investors can make a fortune buying these stocks. Most don't amount to much, however most stocks don't have an IPO like Google did. A company that issues low priced stocks can come out with a blockbuster. Or it could be bought out by a bigger business.
I'm one. The first new computer I got I got 10 years ago and it was a Windows PC. Since then I have used Windows almost exclusively. However because Microsoft has decided to treat me like a criminal, that's exactly what Activation and WGA/WPA are, I've switched. I'm typing this on a Macbook Pro I got several weeks ago. And about a year ago I bought a PC with Linux preinstalled which I'll setup as a server.
Vista is crap, and we want the ability to order our machines with XP.
You might but I don't want to use a PC with XP either. It is just as crappy as most any other OS MS has released. I have used XP and the first tyme I did it was on a brand new PC. The first tyme I booted up it froze on me. The only MS OS I didn't have a problem with was NT4.0. Then again as the PC I have with NT4 is an DEC Alpha I haven't used it much.
I finally decided short of taxing 100% of wealth over about 10 million dollars (to keep us a jeffersonian democracy of many tiny wealthy people), that it just isn't going to happen. I'm beginning to think that the corporate structure is fundamentally flawed and will inevitably lead to aristocracy.
What's flawed is government's treatment of corporations. Like Thomas Jefferson warned of a Corporate Aristocracy has arisen which uses government for it's own advantage. Corporations were originally granted charters if and only if they served the public good. The first corporations to be chartered were the Dutch East India Company which the first multinational company, in the Netherlands and the Honorable East India Company in England in 1600 and 1602. They were granted corporate charters because of the need for limited liability and so that many small investors could pool their money together to make investments. Both companies were in risky businesses, shipping. A ship might sink or be attacked by pirates, and the company or ship owner was responsible for the loss of the cargo, the owner of the cargo had to be repaid for the loss. A small investor in a ship could lose not only what they invested in the ship but everything they owned. By chartering corporations investors were only liable for what they invested, if they bought stocks in a ship for $1000 and it sank the most they could loose is that $1000. Government has the power to revoke charters if a corporation no long does that however it's no longer enforced.
You are, I think confuse liberals with libertarians. The fight to 'get governments out of the way of large megacorps like Microsoft which would happily chew up even medium-sized competitors and spit their not-so-juicy leftovers out on the sidewalk' is one area where libertarians and conservatives seem to be in alliance.
No I think it's you who are confused. Yes Libertarians are for small government but they are also for self responsibility and oppose monopolies, especially those created by government. Reduce the size and power of government then they can't create monopolies by for instance barring competition.
These people will often site Adam Smith [bcgreen.com] as the grandfather of Laissez-faire capitalism and the principle of 'free market'
Yes Adam Smith was pro free markets and laissez-faire capitalism, however what many don't know or simply ignore is that he was also against monopolies saying "that a monopoly would lead to higher prices because of scarcity".
Though I do wonder what level of fine it would take for Microsoft to really change it's way of doing things
50% of their cash, with a promise that you take the other half if they don't shape up by the deadline.
Unfortunately, you can't do that anymore. Liberals may not win any elections, but they sure won one part of the "small, powerless government" agenda, and it ain't the "small" one.
I need some clarification, when you use "liberal" are you using as it typically is used in the US with big government programs or are you using it in the context of Classical Liberalism that support small government? As with Libertarians Classical Liberals, which is what Libertarians are , are supportive of self-responsibility.
Microsoft always has the option of withdrawing from the EU and then it won't be subject to their laws.
Sure MS could do that, however if the did not only would they loose the EU market they'd also loose a lot of the US market as well. Without interoperability businesses and other entities with locations in or that does transactions both the EU and the US would have to use a product that does offer interoperability. Also if MS were shut out of the EU other markets may follow suit and shut out MS as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Better watch that, if they catch you reading Ayn Rand you'll definitely be labeled a subversive. She frowned on and hated big government
FalconUnless you're carrying something like the Anarchist Cookbook, it seems unlikely that additional suspicion should be warranted. Given this time of year, it seems ironic that security would be judging others by the cover (and content) of their books rather than their actual threat, if any existed at all.
This was never about national security, it's all about watching people especially those who have the opposite political views as the watchers.
FalconYou are half correct. You are forgetting that a significant percentage of crime is not significantly pre-meditated (i.e snatch and grabs). Camera's MAY have some effectiveness reducing these crimes of opportunity.
Why would CCTVs have much of an impact on impulsive crimes? CCTVs aren't that good at solving crimes. If a criminal gets away with a crime once they are more likely to do it again under the same circumstances. Victims on the other hand will feel safer and therefore wouldn't take as many appropriate steps to prevent a crime.
FalconSome other folks have made references to gun stats, which reminds me quite a bit about this article. Most stories involving guns come at it from one angle or another, trying to make some point. Usually the press offers up the dangers of not enough gun control. The response to this is a listing of the dangers of gun control by groups like the NRA. What we rarely get is a substantial break down of the real effects of weapons in our society. What happened to the city that instituted strong gun control measures? Did the murder rate drop as control advocates suggest? Did other types of crime rise as gun rights advocates suggest? How about what happens when gun controls are relaxed, like instituting concealed carry laws?
When Florida liberalized gun laws, making it easier to conceal carry, homicides went down:
"In 1987, when Florida enacted such legislation, critics warned that the 'Sunshine State' would become the 'Gunshine State.' Contrary to their predictions, homicide rates dropped faster than the national average. Further, through 1997, only one permit holder out of the over 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide. (Source: Kleck, Gary Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 370. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.) If the rest of the country behaved as Florida's permit holders did, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate in the world."
FalconLoss of privacy? A very small price to pay for catching and deterring drunk drivers.
No, but it might prevent you from speaking in public about politics, or of demonstrating politically, even if only peacefully.
FalconLoss of privacy? A very small price to pay for catching and deterring drunk drivers.
To you maybe but I value liberty, of which privacy is one, more than I value "feeling safe". As Benjamin Franklin once said, paraphrasing here, "anyone willing to give up a little liberty for safety will neither get nor deserve either."
FalconMaybe they do not help in deterring crime but I wonder if they help get convictions
TFA says four paragraphs down "In fact, four out of five of the boroughs with the most cameras have a record of solving crime that is below average. " If they aren't solving crimes then they aren't getting convictions either.
Falconcities with effective gun bans are the worst in crime, see DC and Chicago.)
Or see Hong Kong, effective gun control, low crime. Cities in the US with gun control have a hopeless problem preventing guns coming in from less-restricted parts of the country. Your examples could as easlily argue for national restrictions.
However those places where people are allowed to carry, even concealed carry, see drops in crime. See the University of Chicago study "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns". Or take what happened in Florida after Liberalized Concealed Carry Laws were passed. The homicide rate in Florida dropped faster than the drop in the country after they were passed. And of more than 350,000 permits being issued only one person with a permit was convicted of homicide.
FalconFact is is "faith" was used theologically after 32 years after it was first used and 50 years went by before being used in religion.
This sentence isn't even readable, try again.
It seems you need to work on your comprehension. But to make it more comprehensible to you. let me try to explain it like this. It was 32 years after it's first use before it was used theologically, and another 28 years pasted before being used in a religious context. First use = X, first theological use = X+32, and first religious use = X+50. I'm wondering if you can understand it that way.
FalconOf course, in their bankruptcy filings, SCO doesn't acknowledge that they owe Novell anything ... presumably under the premise that nothing is owing until the judge declares so
The judge has already ruled SCO owes Novell, all that needs to be determined is how much. "SCO's potential death blow came in a ruling last month, as Judge Dale Kimball of Utah's U.S. District Court ruled that Novell still owned the Unix and UnixWare copyrights that formed the basis of SCO's grievance. Kimball's order is likely to cripple SCO's flagship Linux case, the extensive complaint against IBM it filed in 2003."
FalconSure they did - they're called Nvidia now.
No, SGI now concentrates on high performance or super computers. Altera and XtremeData Show Industry's Highest Performance Front Side Bus Module for Intel Xeon Processor-Based Platforms
FalconThis is as stupid as horse drawn buggy makers blaming automobile makers for going out of business. SGI didnt adjust.
Actually SGI did adjust. Instead of making PCs, which I thought were pretty good, they now concentrate on high performance or supercomputers. Naval Surface Warfare Center Selects SGI Altix for Modeling of Warhead Impact.
FalconI believe the judge already has ruled the money is Novell's, what needs to be determined is how much money Novell is going to get.
How could that have happened? The trial hasn't occurred yet. We are still in pre-trial. The only thing the judge has ruled on is what evidence will be admitted at trial to determine the facts.
Here goes:
"SCO claims it owns all copyrights over Unix and that Linux infringes on those copyrights. In what were widely seen as bet-the-company moves, SCO, beginning in 2003, launched a series of lawsuits against rivals and customers claiming their use of Linux was violating the copyrights. The campaign was dealt a crushing blow on Aug. 10 when federal court Judge Dale Kimball ruled that Novell, and not SCO, owns the copyrights to Unix."
"As a result, Kimball said that SCO must remit to Novell a portion of the fees it has collected from selling Unix licenses -- mostly to Sun and Microsoft. That could amount to as much as $25 million. The total is to be decided at a trial that's set to start today. The case is scheduled to proceed as a bench trial, meaning that Kimball -- not a jury -- will decide the outcome."
There's what judge Kimball said. Then this:
"Novell and SCO were slated to begin trial yesterday to determine the amount SCO would need to fork over, but SCO's last-minute bankruptcy filing prompted a postponement of the Novell trial."
FslconAnyone want to bet that if they'd stuck with Caldera Linux as their primary business, they'd be doing a lot better today?
From what I recall Caldera was loosing ground in selling Linux. Sure they were selling it but other distros passed them by and became bigger.
To pull out an old analogy, it's like they started out as an automobile company,
Is this part of a pun? Using an auto company as an example when SCO tried to sue one, Daimler Chrysler if I recall right.
FaclonI don't know whether the assets are just given to Novell, or if they are sold off and Novell gets the proceeds. I suspect they'll be sold - it is the only real way to determine the value of assets such as the Unix IP.
The UNIX IPs can't be sold, Novell owns them not SCO. SCO only has the right to sale licenses.
FalconSCO was Novell's agent and therefore had the right to handle Novell's money, it is up to the judge to interpret the contract and determine if SCO violated its fiduciary duty and the terms of the contract. Although I would guess the judge is overwhelmingly going to side with Novell.
I believe the judge already has ruled the money is Novell's, what needs to be determined is how much money Novell is going to get.
FalconDoesn't chapeter 11 bankruptacy protect SCO from giving Novel any money?
Chapter 11 only protects assets, property owned so to speak. The money that SCO never gave to Novell is Novell's not SCO's. SCO was supposed to give all of the money they were paid for licenses to Novell then Novell would give SCO 5% of the money back. The money was Novell's property.
FalconThe power company may never even know about it
but if they do find out and your local laws prohibit it then you could be in real trouble. Especially if your jury-rigged setup ends up shocking a repairman.
Which is why you use equipment that can island, disconnect from the powerlines yet still provide electricity locally.
FalconThis is an issue with Lloyds insurance, the liability of the insurance underwriters is effectivly unlimited.
Lloyds of London was established in 1688, more than 80 years after both East India companies were incorporated. Swiss Re, the world's largest reinsurer, was established in 1862 60 years after the East India companies. And as for liability, just as with other insurance policies, reinsurers are only liable for the amount covered in the policy. Also reinsurers buy insurance as well.
At the time $100 might well be a lot for a "small investor", it might even be perfectly possible for a person to hold only one share/stock for $1.
I just used "$1000" as an example, dollars didn't even exist then. Even the first Swiss frank dates from 1798. It's only been recently that there has been standard widely used money for buying or trading. Before 1798 cantons in Switzerland had their own money, as did most other places. And yes, even now stocks can be bought cheaply, the penny stocks. Capable, and maybe lucky, investors can make a fortune buying these stocks. Most don't amount to much, however most stocks don't have an IPO like Google did. A company that issues low priced stocks can come out with a blockbuster. Or it could be bought out by a bigger business.
Falconthis year
I'm one. The first new computer I got I got 10 years ago and it was a Windows PC. Since then I have used Windows almost exclusively. However because Microsoft has decided to treat me like a criminal, that's exactly what Activation and WGA/WPA are, I've switched. I'm typing this on a Macbook Pro I got several weeks ago. And about a year ago I bought a PC with Linux preinstalled which I'll setup as a server.
Vista is crap, and we want the ability to order our machines with XP.
You might but I don't want to use a PC with XP either. It is just as crappy as most any other OS MS has released. I have used XP and the first tyme I did it was on a brand new PC. The first tyme I booted up it froze on me. The only MS OS I didn't have a problem with was NT4.0. Then again as the PC I have with NT4 is an DEC Alpha I haven't used it much.
FalconI finally decided short of taxing 100% of wealth over about 10 million dollars (to keep us a jeffersonian democracy of many tiny wealthy people), that it just isn't going to happen. I'm beginning to think that the corporate structure is fundamentally flawed and will inevitably lead to aristocracy.
What's flawed is government's treatment of corporations. Like Thomas Jefferson warned of a Corporate Aristocracy has arisen which uses government for it's own advantage. Corporations were originally granted charters if and only if they served the public good. The first corporations to be chartered were the Dutch East India Company which the first multinational company, in the Netherlands and the Honorable East India Company in England in 1600 and 1602. They were granted corporate charters because of the need for limited liability and so that many small investors could pool their money together to make investments. Both companies were in risky businesses, shipping. A ship might sink or be attacked by pirates, and the company or ship owner was responsible for the loss of the cargo, the owner of the cargo had to be repaid for the loss. A small investor in a ship could lose not only what they invested in the ship but everything they owned. By chartering corporations investors were only liable for what they invested, if they bought stocks in a ship for $1000 and it sank the most they could loose is that $1000. Government has the power to revoke charters if a corporation no long does that however it's no longer enforced.
FalconYou are, I think confuse liberals with libertarians. The fight to 'get governments out of the way of large megacorps like Microsoft which would happily chew up even medium-sized competitors and spit their not-so-juicy leftovers out on the sidewalk' is one area where libertarians and conservatives seem to be in alliance.
No I think it's you who are confused. Yes Libertarians are for small government but they are also for self responsibility and oppose monopolies, especially those created by government. Reduce the size and power of government then they can't create monopolies by for instance barring competition.
These people will often site Adam Smith [bcgreen.com] as the grandfather of Laissez-faire capitalism and the principle of 'free market'
Yes Adam Smith was pro free markets and laissez-faire capitalism, however what many don't know or simply ignore is that he was also against monopolies saying "that a monopoly would lead to higher prices because of scarcity".
Though I do wonder what level of fine it would take for Microsoft to really change it's way of doing things
50% of their cash, with a promise that you take the other half if they don't shape up by the deadline.
Unfortunately, you can't do that anymore. Liberals may not win any elections, but they sure won one part of the "small, powerless government" agenda, and it ain't the "small" one.
I need some clarification, when you use "liberal" are you using as it typically is used in the US with big government programs or are you using it in the context of Classical Liberalism that support small government? As with Libertarians Classical Liberals, which is what Libertarians are , are supportive of self-responsibility.
FalconThere's probably a good number of chairs.
True, perhaps Ballmer can use them.
FalconMicrosoft always has the option of withdrawing from the EU and then it won't be subject to their laws.
Sure MS could do that, however if the did not only would they loose the EU market they'd also loose a lot of the US market as well. Without interoperability businesses and other entities with locations in or that does transactions both the EU and the US would have to use a product that does offer interoperability. Also if MS were shut out of the EU other markets may follow suit and shut out MS as well.
Falcon