The problem with recinding an established law is the amount of votes required (is it 2/3?) This makes it very hard to remove. With a law expiring it now needs (2/3?) of Congress to approve it to come back. This makes it very hard to keep the existing law or even a modification of it.
The people wanted and needed swift action - and this is what came of it, for all the good and bad.
Patriot Act was made in a tense situation and something needed to happen quickly. Nobody is perfect and this was the only plan they had on the table that seemed feasible. They can justify it (and i think that is enough) by saying "Yes it is not the perfect plan, but we put an expiration on this law in case it panned out to be a bad law."
While it has its problems, it is not 100% bad. I think it can now go through a lot of modification and become a fairer law. We definitly need something in place - and this is a starting point. If handled right, the Patriot act can be changed into a wonderful law that helps protect us from terrorists.
None of us can deny the fact they put an expiration date on this law. This feature was great forsight and will allow us to (more easily) modify or delete the Patriot Act.
So if the people really do hate the Patriot Act it will be known when it gets modified/deleted.
Was copyright mentioned in the constitution? The original constitution? No I do not think so. Now that is interesting point you bring up. The Constitution says you are endowed with certain rights. 1) It is not saying anything about IP. There is no natural right for you to take what i created and modify/give it out as you so please. Otherwise, why can't I take Linux change the author title from Linus to Avi and then give it out to people saying I created it? And for that matter, why can't I go on and then sell it?
Copyright is a needed law that helps give incentive for companies to create works. They will not create it if they cannot profit from it (for the most part). People have the option of giving their stuff away for free - - goodfor them. But it is their OPTION. Your method is proposing to take away OPTIONS from the people who invested their work, time and intellect. How unfair is that...so you can get something for free because you are too cheap to pay the author.
Well, you have no natural right to a copyright. I OTOH have a natural right of free speech and press, encompassing repeating what you said.
All other stuff being trivial (i mean arguing over 25 years or 50 year, whatever). This statement hits me hard. Where is it written that you have a "natural" right to my creation? You have no such natural right. Hypothetically, lets say I created Counterstrike/HL-2. What gives you the "natural" right to it after X amount of years? It is a completely artificial product and I am pretty darned sure that if asked there is no naturally made version of CS. Meaning go travel up and down through space and you will not find it.
No I strenuously believe you are wrong. You do not have a natural right to my works to do with as you please. I, on the other hand, have a natural right to all of my works as they came from my head.
If you want to encourage works then ensure people get paid. People want to get money for their works. The people at Valve and Steam would not have made Half-life or Counterstrike if they weren't going to get paid millions.
Would you consider such a situation good? If a browser is the default browser for an OS, it should have been designed to work flawlessly with other parts of the OS, not designed in isolation and fixed up to work at the end of development. Not that I'm saying that a better-designed IE would be good for us, since it would be harder to convince users to convert, but in an ideal development situation, the product is designed to work well, not just barely.
Find me a browser that works flawleslly with all of its components and never needs updates. There is no such OS. When you look at a program, hundreds and even thousands of megabytes in size - it is pretty damn amazing that it works in the first place.
What happens if a person copyrights something that he does not have the capital to go-live in the first five years (which is a relatively short time frame)? Do they get screwed? Maybe five years in technology is a long time (i.e. Is counterstrike really gonna be that hot in five years?)....but this is a law that will affect other things such as books, music, etc.
I kind of like "until the publishing author dies +10 years. If the author dies abruptly (i.e. 5 years after the copyright was made) then it is XX years for the survivors of the copyright" XX is a double digit number.
Some may disagree - but then again, why should *my* works be subject to *your* whims?
Regarding firearms, I would consider "qualified" to mean someone that has demonstrated proficiency with a firearm and knowledge of the law regarding its use. Most individuals with a state-issued concealed carry permit would do, as would most law enforcement officers.
While I agree with law enforcement officers being qualified - people having state-issued carry permits I would not. For one, not every state has the same requirements. In PA (philly) it requires a one month wait period (presumably a background check), and a minor fee (around $30), and an application. No training in shooting/maintaing a weapon. No training of the laws (they give you a simple one page pamphlet). So I highly disagree.
Also, airplanes have so many people on board you risk hitting someone if you miss. If you do not kill your target in that split second (and even if you do) and the target is strapped with a bomb - you might set it off (be it hitting the bomb, the target pressing the trigger, or it is connected to bio-signs). All of these things a non-trained person would not think of or even know to look for.
No I do not want ANYONE allowed on the plane with any weapons - with the exception of FBI agents who have received prior permission from their agency to do so.
Since most terrorists try and keep a criminal free background (at least known), allowing someone with a carrying permit on the ground is inviting many terrorists to get on the plane with a gun.
Think about it - how many products does Microsoft have to maintain, versus the Mozilla Foundation?
Don't you think this is a bit of a skewed statement? MS has departments, many of them. There is probably an IE department and it's sole purpose is IE. It may not have any conversations with any other departments with the exception of "Will IE still work with the rest of Windows? It does? Great, going back to my cave."
Do you really want to go through this because you didnt want to show ID? I mean you probably had some plans (a date, tickets to a show, dinner reservations, etc). Why go through this hassle? And what does this have to do with plans to consolidate ID forms into one national ID?
Cops love it when people grovel at their authority. In fact, most of the times a cop has asked for my ID, I wasn't doing anything wrong.
What if they were searching for someone with your description? But they had a name and vague description. It would be nice if the cop could say "show me your ID" so they could verify if you were the perp or not....then again, would you rather spend two minutes showing your ID or spend two hours going downtown? And I am willing to bet that 1) if you missed your plans they won't reimburse you and 2) they won't drive you back home.
Again, imho, cops/gov't/businesses have certain powers they can inact. You can choose not to listen to a business (i.e. bank) by not working with them. The gov't/cops are slightly different, obviously. This will consolidate ID forms - you will be "hindered" just the same.
Currently, all the naysayers are, imho, being scared little tin-foil hat wearers who want to scream that this is bad just because it is a gov't enacted law.
CC is commonly used form of ID. You can check into a flight with a CC, a bar, ect. Social security card is considered a form of ID. There was a checklist of what is considered forms of ID, driver's license and SS card together is the same as a passport (according to the list).
Really? Where? I worked at three different banks and each of those had CC as a secondary form of ID (you had to have a primary with you). I worked as a bouncer at a bar and we didn't accept CC's as 1) it didnt state your age 2) didn't have your picture.
Now at banks what we did accept was: DL, state ID (official), passport, military ID, green card. At a bar we accepted all of those ID's. There may be one or two I am missing but all of the official ID's have this in common: Picture, Age, and were issued by the fed/state/local gov't.
RFID I agree should not be included. If someone wants to see my ID information they need to ask me for it (or grab it from my body), not just get near me with a scanner. As for paying for it - we currently pay for ID's, and if handled properly (by merging all id's to one form) it might get cheaper (though the way our gov't is run, i doubt it).
Everyone COULD demand to see ID, but not everyone will get it. Then again, they can just as well demand it now. Do you think if the GAP store didn't demand your DL before they will do so now? The bank has and will continue to do so, bars will (those that do in the first place), police will, and so forth.
Credit cards are not a form of ID.... and really SS card should not be considered one (and is not considered one by most organizations). If your SS card is a form of ID what is to prevent me from stealing someones card and then saying "well look at my ID, the one without the picture."
I want the convenience of one card for my SS, DL, passport and gun carrying permit. So that way when the cop asks me for my ID I am not handing him two or three pieces (by law when a cop pulls me over i need to show him my gun carrying permit if i am carrying it).
If you have any of the four forms of ID - why are you so worried about having them merged into one. They all basically carry the same information.
This should not be rated as Offtopic...since where else can we post it....what DID happen to that Cherry OS story. I went, read the story (which was crappy mind you as it gave us no detail) and came back and its gone? Hmmm [rummages for tin-foil hat level 9 of 10] "Are we being sensored?"
What OS will you use to allow you to utilize that broadband connection? The point is they worded the story so badly that it would confuse some people. On a board like/., where I expect the people here to be up and up on the knowledge scale - the author should have written "Windows" instead of "Microsoft". MS is not a product it is a company name.
There we go. "Fear leads to hate... Hate leads to anger... Anger leads to the DARKSIDE!!!"
Please show me where it is written that a "right" is something given to you by god. Please show me where it is written where "Right to freedom of speech" is granted to you by god. Just try to avoid quotes from people such as our founding fathers.
Nevermind, i actually dont care to hear anything from someone so beligerant as you.
1) So I can drive my car without worried if i get pulled over
2) Because I carry a gun and need to have my carrying permit on me (a fourth piece of ID mind you)
3) Because I want it to be easy for someone to identify me if i am murdered or found unconscious
4) Because many places like bars, banks, stores that take credit cards want a valid form of ID.
While ID cards may not be a god-send and nobody is saying they are - they do provide some help. An ID card that a potential criminal (including terrorists) has might help give some insight (i.e. known aliases, picture, fingerprint, etc)
Why use Microsoft if you have a broadband connection and combine Firefox with powerful web services like Google's Gmail?
Because if I just use firefox and gmail without an OS I won't get anywhere? Maybe with all that zeal our poster could have said something "Why use Internet Explorer if you have a broadband connection and combine Firefox with powerful web services like Google's Gmail?"
Well maybe I wasn't graced with a g-mail account (yes many people are in that boat, and many people don't even know of gmail). Maybe I use something other then firefox or IE. Maybe I like my yahoo or hotmail, etc.
An airline does not have to let you on their plane. So if you do not have an ID they do not have to let you on. So assuming that security gets finished anally raping you prior to the plane leaving - the airline may still not let you on.
As for "qualified" passangers. Who is qualified? Personally I don't trust anyone with a gun. What if they miss and hit the plane? Thats great a bullet hits the plane - imagine the fun there.
What you mean is "You are physically capable of doing certain things." Maybe it was due to faulty memory, but I just don't remember the training course where god said I have certain rights. There are certain things I can do. For example: I can speak out, i can type, i can run, i can kill someone. Then there are certain things which the gov't says I am allowed to do and not allowed to do (my rights). In this country I am allowed to speak out, allowed to type, allowed to run, allowed to...oh wait I am not allowed to kill someone.
No God does not give "rights" God gives us the physical ability ("can" i do this) to do things. Government gives us permission (am I "allowed" to do this). "Allowed" = your rights. In China you have rights - and they are different from your rights here in the US. In Iraq - under Saddam- you had rights, and they were different from the US. I guess God didn't give those Iraq's the right to freedom of speech did he?
Yes "rights" can be given and taken away by the whim of the people. Go commit a crime and watch your rights go away real quick - many of them. Have a bill passed into law with regards to freedom of speech and watch that right go away. You, and a few others think there is some "gaurenteed" set of priveledges. The only thing gaurenteed to us is life and death. That piece of paper - the consitution - gives us rights - without it we would be held under different codes. Put it this way - think of China - they don't have the freedom of speech like we do...why you ask? Because their government took away their "right".
Find me a politician who does not have a national ID card (social security), or a state ID card (drivers license/state id). You simply give way too much credit to these pieces of identification. The difference between this card and what we have today:
1) Today we have three pieces of ID. Social security, stateID/drivers license (optional from state to state, Passport (totally optional).
2) This card would consolidate all of these three forms of ID.
So how is manipulating what we have today any different from manipulating the proposed? In all honesty - what can be done to the proposed card can be done to the regular forms of ID. Except with the current ID cards we have:
1) Non-uniform ID. I can make a fake (but real looking) PA ID and go to New Mexico and many people will get easily scammed
2) I have to carry with me up to three pieces of ID instead of just one convenient card.
I take that to mean that even if a state does require you to identify yourself, that does not mean you must produce a document to do so. I was unable to find anything suggesting a pedestrian must produce an ID card.
So what happens if I decide to tell the office my name is Tom Dick? The cop gives "Tom Dick" a ticket which nothing ever comes about?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with recinding an established law is the amount of votes required (is it 2/3?) This makes it very hard to remove. With a law expiring it now needs (2/3?) of Congress to approve it to come back. This makes it very hard to keep the existing law or even a modification of it.
The people wanted and needed swift action - and this is what came of it, for all the good and bad.
Patriot Act was made in a tense situation and something needed to happen quickly. Nobody is perfect and this was the only plan they had on the table that seemed feasible. They can justify it (and i think that is enough) by saying "Yes it is not the perfect plan, but we put an expiration on this law in case it panned out to be a bad law."
While it has its problems, it is not 100% bad. I think it can now go through a lot of modification and become a fairer law. We definitly need something in place - and this is a starting point. If handled right, the Patriot act can be changed into a wonderful law that helps protect us from terrorists.
None of us can deny the fact they put an expiration date on this law. This feature was great forsight and will allow us to (more easily) modify or delete the Patriot Act.
So if the people really do hate the Patriot Act it will be known when it gets modified/deleted.
Was copyright mentioned in the constitution? The original constitution? No I do not think so. Now that is interesting point you bring up. The Constitution says you are endowed with certain rights. 1) It is not saying anything about IP. There is no natural right for you to take what i created and modify/give it out as you so please. Otherwise, why can't I take Linux change the author title from Linus to Avi and then give it out to people saying I created it? And for that matter, why can't I go on and then sell it?
Copyright is a needed law that helps give incentive for companies to create works. They will not create it if they cannot profit from it (for the most part). People have the option of giving their stuff away for free - - goodfor them. But it is their OPTION. Your method is proposing to take away OPTIONS from the people who invested their work, time and intellect. How unfair is that...so you can get something for free because you are too cheap to pay the author.
Well, you have no natural right to a copyright. I OTOH have a natural right of free speech and press, encompassing repeating what you said.
All other stuff being trivial (i mean arguing over 25 years or 50 year, whatever). This statement hits me hard. Where is it written that you have a "natural" right to my creation? You have no such natural right. Hypothetically, lets say I created Counterstrike/HL-2. What gives you the "natural" right to it after X amount of years? It is a completely artificial product and I am pretty darned sure that if asked there is no naturally made version of CS. Meaning go travel up and down through space and you will not find it.
No I strenuously believe you are wrong. You do not have a natural right to my works to do with as you please. I, on the other hand, have a natural right to all of my works as they came from my head.
If you want to encourage works then ensure people get paid. People want to get money for their works. The people at Valve and Steam would not have made Half-life or Counterstrike if they weren't going to get paid millions.
Would you consider such a situation good? If a browser is the default browser for an OS, it should have been designed to work flawlessly with other parts of the OS, not designed in isolation and fixed up to work at the end of development. Not that I'm saying that a better-designed IE would be good for us, since it would be harder to convince users to convert, but in an ideal development situation, the product is designed to work well, not just barely.
Find me a browser that works flawleslly with all of its components and never needs updates. There is no such OS. When you look at a program, hundreds and even thousands of megabytes in size - it is pretty damn amazing that it works in the first place.
What happens if a person copyrights something that he does not have the capital to go-live in the first five years (which is a relatively short time frame)? Do they get screwed? Maybe five years in technology is a long time (i.e. Is counterstrike really gonna be that hot in five years?)....but this is a law that will affect other things such as books, music, etc.
I kind of like "until the publishing author dies +10 years. If the author dies abruptly (i.e. 5 years after the copyright was made) then it is XX years for the survivors of the copyright" XX is a double digit number.
Some may disagree - but then again, why should *my* works be subject to *your* whims?
Regarding firearms, I would consider "qualified" to mean someone that has demonstrated proficiency with a firearm and knowledge of the law regarding its use. Most individuals with a state-issued concealed carry permit would do, as would most law enforcement officers.
While I agree with law enforcement officers being qualified - people having state-issued carry permits I would not. For one, not every state has the same requirements. In PA (philly) it requires a one month wait period (presumably a background check), and a minor fee (around $30), and an application. No training in shooting/maintaing a weapon. No training of the laws (they give you a simple one page pamphlet). So I highly disagree.
Also, airplanes have so many people on board you risk hitting someone if you miss. If you do not kill your target in that split second (and even if you do) and the target is strapped with a bomb - you might set it off (be it hitting the bomb, the target pressing the trigger, or it is connected to bio-signs). All of these things a non-trained person would not think of or even know to look for.
No I do not want ANYONE allowed on the plane with any weapons - with the exception of FBI agents who have received prior permission from their agency to do so.
Since most terrorists try and keep a criminal free background (at least known), allowing someone with a carrying permit on the ground is inviting many terrorists to get on the plane with a gun.
In part 3 of 3 of triolgy 3.... "Duke heavy breathing I am heavy breathing Your heavy breathing Grandfather cue evil doomsday vicotry music"
Telewest have stated that they knew about the problem and have been working with customers to regain control of their machines
Start
Shut-Down
Restart in MS-DOS
c:\format c:
Think about it - how many products does Microsoft have to maintain, versus the Mozilla Foundation?
Don't you think this is a bit of a skewed statement? MS has departments, many of them. There is probably an IE department and it's sole purpose is IE. It may not have any conversations with any other departments with the exception of "Will IE still work with the rest of Windows? It does? Great, going back to my cave."
taking you downtown because you didn't show ID
Do you really want to go through this because you didnt want to show ID? I mean you probably had some plans (a date, tickets to a show, dinner reservations, etc). Why go through this hassle? And what does this have to do with plans to consolidate ID forms into one national ID? Cops love it when people grovel at their authority. In fact, most of the times a cop has asked for my ID, I wasn't doing anything wrong.
What if they were searching for someone with your description? But they had a name and vague description. It would be nice if the cop could say "show me your ID" so they could verify if you were the perp or not....then again, would you rather spend two minutes showing your ID or spend two hours going downtown? And I am willing to bet that 1) if you missed your plans they won't reimburse you and 2) they won't drive you back home.
Again, imho, cops/gov't/businesses have certain powers they can inact. You can choose not to listen to a business (i.e. bank) by not working with them. The gov't/cops are slightly different, obviously. This will consolidate ID forms - you will be "hindered" just the same.
Currently, all the naysayers are, imho, being scared little tin-foil hat wearers who want to scream that this is bad just because it is a gov't enacted law.
CC is commonly used form of ID. You can check into a flight with a CC, a bar, ect. Social security card is considered a form of ID. There was a checklist of what is considered forms of ID, driver's license and SS card together is the same as a passport (according to the list).
Really? Where? I worked at three different banks and each of those had CC as a secondary form of ID (you had to have a primary with you). I worked as a bouncer at a bar and we didn't accept CC's as 1) it didnt state your age 2) didn't have your picture.
Now at banks what we did accept was: DL, state ID (official), passport, military ID, green card. At a bar we accepted all of those ID's. There may be one or two I am missing but all of the official ID's have this in common: Picture, Age, and were issued by the fed/state/local gov't.
RFID I agree should not be included. If someone wants to see my ID information they need to ask me for it (or grab it from my body), not just get near me with a scanner. As for paying for it - we currently pay for ID's, and if handled properly (by merging all id's to one form) it might get cheaper (though the way our gov't is run, i doubt it).
Everyone COULD demand to see ID, but not everyone will get it. Then again, they can just as well demand it now. Do you think if the GAP store didn't demand your DL before they will do so now? The bank has and will continue to do so, bars will (those that do in the first place), police will, and so forth.
Credit cards are not a form of ID.... and really SS card should not be considered one (and is not considered one by most organizations). If your SS card is a form of ID what is to prevent me from stealing someones card and then saying "well look at my ID, the one without the picture."
I want the convenience of one card for my SS, DL, passport and gun carrying permit. So that way when the cop asks me for my ID I am not handing him two or three pieces (by law when a cop pulls me over i need to show him my gun carrying permit if i am carrying it).
If you have any of the four forms of ID - why are you so worried about having them merged into one. They all basically carry the same information.
This should not be rated as Offtopic...since where else can we post it....what DID happen to that Cherry OS story. I went, read the story (which was crappy mind you as it gave us no detail) and came back and its gone? Hmmm [rummages for tin-foil hat level 9 of 10] "Are we being sensored?"
What OS will you use to allow you to utilize that broadband connection? The point is they worded the story so badly that it would confuse some people. On a board like /., where I expect the people here to be up and up on the knowledge scale - the author should have written "Windows" instead of "Microsoft". MS is not a product it is a company name.
There we go. "Fear leads to hate... Hate leads to anger... Anger leads to the DARKSIDE!!!"
Please show me where it is written that a "right" is something given to you by god. Please show me where it is written where "Right to freedom of speech" is granted to you by god. Just try to avoid quotes from people such as our founding fathers.
Nevermind, i actually dont care to hear anything from someone so beligerant as you.
1) So I can drive my car without worried if i get pulled over
2) Because I carry a gun and need to have my carrying permit on me (a fourth piece of ID mind you)
3) Because I want it to be easy for someone to identify me if i am murdered or found unconscious
4) Because many places like bars, banks, stores that take credit cards want a valid form of ID.
While ID cards may not be a god-send and nobody is saying they are - they do provide some help. An ID card that a potential criminal (including terrorists) has might help give some insight (i.e. known aliases, picture, fingerprint, etc)
Most hack jobs that I have read never mention 24/7... It is assumed 24/7 unless stated otherwise. A bit of common sense should prevail here.
Why use Microsoft if you have a broadband connection and combine Firefox with powerful web services like Google's Gmail?
Because if I just use firefox and gmail without an OS I won't get anywhere? Maybe with all that zeal our poster could have said something "Why use Internet Explorer if you have a broadband connection and combine Firefox with powerful web services like Google's Gmail?"
Well maybe I wasn't graced with a g-mail account (yes many people are in that boat, and many people don't even know of gmail). Maybe I use something other then firefox or IE. Maybe I like my yahoo or hotmail, etc.
An airline does not have to let you on their plane. So if you do not have an ID they do not have to let you on. So assuming that security gets finished anally raping you prior to the plane leaving - the airline may still not let you on.
As for "qualified" passangers. Who is qualified? Personally I don't trust anyone with a gun. What if they miss and hit the plane? Thats great a bullet hits the plane - imagine the fun there.
You have Rights because God gave them to you
What you mean is "You are physically capable of doing certain things." Maybe it was due to faulty memory, but I just don't remember the training course where god said I have certain rights. There are certain things I can do. For example: I can speak out, i can type, i can run, i can kill someone. Then there are certain things which the gov't says I am allowed to do and not allowed to do (my rights). In this country I am allowed to speak out, allowed to type, allowed to run, allowed to...oh wait I am not allowed to kill someone.
No God does not give "rights" God gives us the physical ability ("can" i do this) to do things. Government gives us permission (am I "allowed" to do this). "Allowed" = your rights. In China you have rights - and they are different from your rights here in the US. In Iraq - under Saddam- you had rights, and they were different from the US. I guess God didn't give those Iraq's the right to freedom of speech did he?
Yes "rights" can be given and taken away by the whim of the people. Go commit a crime and watch your rights go away real quick - many of them. Have a bill passed into law with regards to freedom of speech and watch that right go away. You, and a few others think there is some "gaurenteed" set of priveledges. The only thing gaurenteed to us is life and death. That piece of paper - the consitution - gives us rights - without it we would be held under different codes. Put it this way - think of China - they don't have the freedom of speech like we do...why you ask? Because their government took away their "right".
Find me a politician who does not have a national ID card (social security), or a state ID card (drivers license/state id). You simply give way too much credit to these pieces of identification. The difference between this card and what we have today:
1) Today we have three pieces of ID. Social security, stateID/drivers license (optional from state to state, Passport (totally optional).
2) This card would consolidate all of these three forms of ID.
So how is manipulating what we have today any different from manipulating the proposed? In all honesty - what can be done to the proposed card can be done to the regular forms of ID. Except with the current ID cards we have:
1) Non-uniform ID. I can make a fake (but real looking) PA ID and go to New Mexico and many people will get easily scammed
2) I have to carry with me up to three pieces of ID instead of just one convenient card.
I take that to mean that even if a state does require you to identify yourself, that does not mean you must produce a document to do so. I was unable to find anything suggesting a pedestrian must produce an ID card.
So what happens if I decide to tell the office my name is Tom Dick? The cop gives "Tom Dick" a ticket which nothing ever comes about?