That's a good point, but largely irrelevant. We're not talking about the real boot loader here, only the MBR. The MBR is, by design constraint, very small. It has been heavily scrutinized by many people. All it really does is chainload the partition marked as bootable. the REAL Microsoft boot loader is ntldr, which is on the Windows system volume (hidden file at the root of the drive).
Unless you're some oddball that decided to install another boot loader over Vista's
That depends on which part of the boot loader you're talking about. There are a great many of us who have overwritten the Microsoft MBR in a dual boot fashion. since all it really does is pass control to the partition boot sector, overwriting it is not strange in the least. Now if you were talking about people using an alternate style system volume to boot Windows, that would be oddball indeed.
GRUB includes a bios hack to allow this. without looking it up, I believe it is the "map" command. I've done this with XP just fine. It's only the Windows boot loader that's too stupid to understand that it's on a second drive. The rest of Windows understands it and just doesn't care.
Allow me to observe that if the court and the court's law clerks and law secretaries (many of whom are "digital natives") do not understand the case, that may be a sign that the plaintiff has none.
I don't buy it. The "other side" can only rationally* claim there is a smoking gun if there is a witness that says it exists. If the email is deleted, then the witness is given credibility.
(*admittedly, judges have been convinced by the irrational before...)
Web browsers aren't the only things which download web pages. Web crawlers such as google, yahoo, and msn also download your pages. These crawlers wont ever render a page. They only strip out searchable content. If someone isn't careful about non-visual text (alt-texts and such) it is possible to get a very low search engine ranking for an otherwise excellent site. The same is true for javascript (read: ajax) generated content.
Personally, I think this scenario is rare. But it is a valid concern.
Respectfully, they're not maintaining many of the character facets from other sources. The franchise is being reinvented anew. In the movie, he never claimed to have lived for hundreds of years. The league of shadows has been around for thousands, but that doesn't mean anything about its current leader. Besides, is Ras al Ghul "a man, or a legend?"
I agree, at least in part. Why did batman not kill the joker when he had the chance? It certainly would have been for the greater good. There are only two explanations I can conceive.
(1) He couldn't bring himself to do it. This is probably the answer the writers were implying but it isn't good enough. That's just weakness. Heroes are allowed weakness, but I really prefer it when they learn to overcome their weaknesses.
(2) He couldn't allow the Batman persona to be a killer or be seen as a killer. The moment he kills as Batman, he loses what moral superiority he has. People will forever see him differently, even if he has saved lives by so doing. Many will no longer regard him as a beacon of hope, but another masked villain with his own bent and disregard for the law. If this is the case, then he has allowed himself to be defeated by the Joker. It really ruins the sentiment at the end of the movie. Does the White Knight, who is dead and no longer protecting Gotham get mud in his face, or does the Dark Knight who is still protecting Gotham get the bad rap?
Absolutely not. Part of the appeal of this new series is the mortality that they show. The Joker can die; Two face can die; Rachael can die. The mansion can be burned down, and doesn't instantly pop back up in the next movie (though we all know it was being rebuilt from the end of BB on). Maybe Batman can't die, but he can show off his scars and not appear invincible.
My point is, they cannot bring back either victim or villain from the dead without destroying the level of realism they're working hard to build. Yes, I know it's still not realistic, but compared to previous movies, it's downright believable. Besides which, bringing back Harvey would tarnish the tragedy that was his death. It would only take away from this movie, even if it added to the next.
(Though I'm still not convinced al Ghul was still on that train when it crashed; not that I expect them to bring him back.)
Find one with a command line installer, such as many.msi install files (use the command line arguments). Now, install an ssh server. Practice installing the keylogger from another machine, but leave uninstalled. As long as your password is sufficiently strong, and you've written down the ssh hash, you haven't weakened security (negligible).
There have been a few suggestions to find another department who specializes in computer crimes. I have a spin-off idea. Ask the Cops IT guy! He's bound to know a competent department to refer you to. He has probably been given a contact number to call if he sees something fishy. This might not be the first line to follow, but you can use it before you throw in the towel.
That would work only if the point was to inflict punishment on the "current laptop user" (which might not be the thief if it was hocked). The end result for the laptop, though, is it will sit on an evidence shelf indefinitely...
Thank you for spelling it out. Now I can take exception to it.
I have an issue with (a)(1)(C) which, incidentally, is included in section (a)(1). I work for a local computer repair shop. We once checked in a laptop from a shady fellow. It seemed to be a corporate laptop, and he was acting on edge. Since the circumstances of his request added to my suspicion, I did a little poking around in system data. I was able to prove that the laptop belonged to a University. I did not pry into documents, but I did examine data not normally "available to the public" on the system. Long story short, he had left his job there, and took the laptop with him. The local police here collected the unit (I presume the law was followed, I was not party to that).
Now had I been in Texas, under this new law, I could have said to myself: "That guy seems shady; oh well." Anything more would have been a violation of law. My boss certainly wouldn't have paid a PI to investigate. He was willing to let me spend a little time on it, but that was pushing it. If I hadn't, it probably would have come to nothing. BUT, it also could have resulted in at least one violation of law (probably several, due to circumstances).
This is my reading of the situation, anyway. IANAL
And please stop posting news of new laws that are obviously not reviewed by real lawyers or people who can fucking read at least. PLEASE.
Amen. That and I wish we could get more real lawyers here. I wish we could get the lawyers who are here to speak up more often.
(I really don't mind the "I'm not your lawyer and this isn't advice" spiel.)
My boss had this happen to him too. They tried to bill an outdated card, instead of the good card numbers that they had, didn't notify him, and sold the domain to a cyber-squatter. He wasn't very happy with GoDaddy at the time.
(rereading thread...)
I was replying to StorminMormon's comment about the NA/lost tribe thing not being part of Mormonism... He means well, but not everything he has said has been true or accurate. He'll get there eventually (I hope).
Because that exact idea was part of official Mormon publications for over 20 years. It was a teaching--so this isn't something that critics are making up. OK, I'll give you that without argument. I was curious at your statement that the passage had been changed. I still see no reason that it was changed in the publication, but not changed in the online version.
There's a reason for the difference in some cases--if that religion is claiming authoritative titles like "prophet" and "apostle". If you claim to speak for God, you're held to a higher standard--the Old Testament penalty for false prophets was pretty high. (sigh)
Again it was an opinion piece. I said that. Yes, I expect them to be held to a much "higher standard", but not impossibly high. Was Moses, perfect? How about Peter? The illusion of perfection comes with time. The longer ago a revered icon lived, the greater the aura of perfection. The Bible only mentions some prophet's and apostle's imperfections. Indeed, almost all of those text were written by apostles and prophets. Who goes out of their way to admit faults when trying to gather followers? Rest assured, they were just as imperfect as we are. The only difference is where they gained their knowledge and authority in the first place. They were not God's puppets any more than the prophets and apostles today.
To emphasize it even stronger, reread the passage above: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore - condemn not the things of God." I believe this passage was found on the gold plates themselves. In other words, the canonized passages that make up the bulk of the Book of Mormon are explicitly acknowledged to contain potential mistakes. They were not God's puppets either. We claim the book to be scripture. We claim that it was inspired of God. We do NOT claim that God edited it for mistakes. Nor does he edit every word spoken, written, taught, or suggested by modern day prophets and apostles. We believe the same about the Bible, though we hold that translation and transcription errors are a far bigger problem in that text.
God's plan is sufficiently perfect to work despite the mistakes of it's adherents. That's part of the beauty of it.
Do you really expect us to publish "How to run a Mormon Congregation: a non-mormon's guide to leadership in the Mormon Church!"? No. But if you don't, people will want to read what is available. Granted
It doesn't look good when a religion has to hide its books. Close. It might look suspicious when a religion hides it's books, but it looks regrettable when it "has to". As I said before, I wish that they didn't "have to" worry about such things.
If it's inspired by god it shouldn't sound ridiculous. And that right there is one of the problems. Nobody has claimed that every word in that book is God-given. We also believe the US Constitution is God inspired, but have never believed it to be perfect either. People often think that we see our leaders as God's puppets, as opposed to his servants. Until that changes, we will constantly be harassed by people claiming that we should be perfect if it was God's church. It's an easy trap to fall into, even for people who are in the church.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a good point, but largely irrelevant. We're not talking about the real boot loader here, only the MBR. The MBR is, by design constraint, very small. It has been heavily scrutinized by many people. All it really does is chainload the partition marked as bootable. the REAL Microsoft boot loader is ntldr, which is on the Windows system volume (hidden file at the root of the drive).
Unless you're some oddball that decided to install another boot loader over Vista's
That depends on which part of the boot loader you're talking about. There are a great many of us who have overwritten the Microsoft MBR in a dual boot fashion. since all it really does is pass control to the partition boot sector, overwriting it is not strange in the least. Now if you were talking about people using an alternate style system volume to boot Windows, that would be oddball indeed.
GRUB includes a bios hack to allow this. without looking it up, I believe it is the "map" command. I've done this with XP just fine. It's only the Windows boot loader that's too stupid to understand that it's on a second drive. The rest of Windows understands it and just doesn't care.
My favorite passage is related to yours.
Allow me to observe that if the court and the court's law clerks and law secretaries (many of whom are "digital natives") do not understand the case, that may be a sign that the plaintiff has none.
Good, as long as one of them is a balanced budget. (I can dream, at least.)
...Supreme Court, as long as the justices have an ounce of sense left in them (and I'm pretty sure that they do)
Not the ones who threw us the eminent domain curve ball (yes, the court has changed a few members since.)
My apologies.
Of course, the plaintiff can always accuse the defendant of perjury and evidence tampering (hard to prove, but sometimes it can be done).
I don't buy it. The "other side" can only rationally* claim there is a smoking gun if there is a witness that says it exists. If the email is deleted, then the witness is given credibility.
(*admittedly, judges have been convinced by the irrational before...)
lol
I thought we were talking about the patent office, though. (copyrights are different)
You missed his point entirely.
Web browsers aren't the only things which download web pages. Web crawlers such as google, yahoo, and msn also download your pages. These crawlers wont ever render a page. They only strip out searchable content. If someone isn't careful about non-visual text (alt-texts and such) it is possible to get a very low search engine ranking for an otherwise excellent site. The same is true for javascript (read: ajax) generated content.
Personally, I think this scenario is rare. But it is a valid concern.
Respectfully, they're not maintaining many of the character facets from other sources. The franchise is being reinvented anew. In the movie, he never claimed to have lived for hundreds of years. The league of shadows has been around for thousands, but that doesn't mean anything about its current leader. Besides, is Ras al Ghul "a man, or a legend?"
(1) He couldn't bring himself to do it. This is probably the answer the writers were implying but it isn't good enough. That's just weakness. Heroes are allowed weakness, but I really prefer it when they learn to overcome their weaknesses.
(2) He couldn't allow the Batman persona to be a killer or be seen as a killer. The moment he kills as Batman, he loses what moral superiority he has. People will forever see him differently, even if he has saved lives by so doing. Many will no longer regard him as a beacon of hope, but another masked villain with his own bent and disregard for the law. If this is the case, then he has allowed himself to be defeated by the Joker. It really ruins the sentiment at the end of the movie. Does the White Knight, who is dead and no longer protecting Gotham get mud in his face, or does the Dark Knight who is still protecting Gotham get the bad rap?
Absolutely not. Part of the appeal of this new series is the mortality that they show. The Joker can die; Two face can die; Rachael can die. The mansion can be burned down, and doesn't instantly pop back up in the next movie (though we all know it was being rebuilt from the end of BB on). Maybe Batman can't die, but he can show off his scars and not appear invincible.
My point is, they cannot bring back either victim or villain from the dead without destroying the level of realism they're working hard to build. Yes, I know it's still not realistic, but compared to previous movies, it's downright believable. Besides which, bringing back Harvey would tarnish the tragedy that was his death. It would only take away from this movie, even if it added to the next.
(Though I'm still not convinced al Ghul was still on that train when it crashed; not that I expect them to bring him back.)
I wish Bill Watterson hadn't stopped writing. What joy he brought.
If this doesn't jog your memory, you'll have to go find it on youtube or something.
Find one with a command line installer, such as many .msi install files (use the command line arguments). Now, install an ssh server. Practice installing the keylogger from another machine, but leave uninstalled. As long as your password is sufficiently strong, and you've written down the ssh hash, you haven't weakened security (negligible).
There have been a few suggestions to find another department who specializes in computer crimes. I have a spin-off idea. Ask the Cops IT guy! He's bound to know a competent department to refer you to. He has probably been given a contact number to call if he sees something fishy. This might not be the first line to follow, but you can use it before you throw in the towel.
That would work only if the point was to inflict punishment on the "current laptop user" (which might not be the thief if it was hocked). The end result for the laptop, though, is it will sit on an evidence shelf indefinitely...
It's still stolen property. The merchandise can be returned and the cops can work backwards across the ebay account. etc.
If the buyer had any reason to believe that the unit was stolen, then it's still probably a crime (it is here in CA).
Thank you for spelling it out. Now I can take exception to it.
I have an issue with (a)(1)(C) which, incidentally, is included in section (a)(1). I work for a local computer repair shop. We once checked in a laptop from a shady fellow. It seemed to be a corporate laptop, and he was acting on edge. Since the circumstances of his request added to my suspicion, I did a little poking around in system data. I was able to prove that the laptop belonged to a University. I did not pry into documents, but I did examine data not normally "available to the public" on the system. Long story short, he had left his job there, and took the laptop with him. The local police here collected the unit (I presume the law was followed, I was not party to that).
Now had I been in Texas, under this new law, I could have said to myself: "That guy seems shady; oh well." Anything more would have been a violation of law. My boss certainly wouldn't have paid a PI to investigate. He was willing to let me spend a little time on it, but that was pushing it. If I hadn't, it probably would have come to nothing. BUT, it also could have resulted in at least one violation of law (probably several, due to circumstances).
This is my reading of the situation, anyway. IANAL
Amen. That and I wish we could get more real lawyers here. I wish we could get the lawyers who are here to speak up more often.
(I really don't mind the "I'm not your lawyer and this isn't advice" spiel.)
This is a great point. Mod Parent "Interesting" please. This has me curious.
My boss had this happen to him too. They tried to bill an outdated card, instead of the good card numbers that they had, didn't notify him, and sold the domain to a cyber-squatter. He wasn't very happy with GoDaddy at the time.
I was replying to StorminMormon's comment about the NA/lost tribe thing not being part of Mormonism... He means well, but not everything he has said has been true or accurate. He'll get there eventually (I hope). Because that exact idea was part of official Mormon publications for over 20 years. It was a teaching--so this isn't something that critics are making up. OK, I'll give you that without argument. I was curious at your statement that the passage had been changed. I still see no reason that it was changed in the publication, but not changed in the online version. There's a reason for the difference in some cases--if that religion is claiming authoritative titles like "prophet" and "apostle". If you claim to speak for God, you're held to a higher standard--the Old Testament penalty for false prophets was pretty high. (sigh)
Again it was an opinion piece. I said that. Yes, I expect them to be held to a much "higher standard", but not impossibly high. Was Moses, perfect? How about Peter? The illusion of perfection comes with time. The longer ago a revered icon lived, the greater the aura of perfection. The Bible only mentions some prophet's and apostle's imperfections. Indeed, almost all of those text were written by apostles and prophets. Who goes out of their way to admit faults when trying to gather followers? Rest assured, they were just as imperfect as we are. The only difference is where they gained their knowledge and authority in the first place. They were not God's puppets any more than the prophets and apostles today.
To emphasize it even stronger, reread the passage above: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore - condemn not the things of God." I believe this passage was found on the gold plates themselves. In other words, the canonized passages that make up the bulk of the Book of Mormon are explicitly acknowledged to contain potential mistakes. They were not God's puppets either. We claim the book to be scripture. We claim that it was inspired of God. We do NOT claim that God edited it for mistakes. Nor does he edit every word spoken, written, taught, or suggested by modern day prophets and apostles. We believe the same about the Bible, though we hold that translation and transcription errors are a far bigger problem in that text.
God's plan is sufficiently perfect to work despite the mistakes of it's adherents. That's part of the beauty of it.
Only because we care. (well, some of us anyway)