You don't have to use WMP to rip CDs you know?
This is really a moot issue. I mean I hate Microsoft and all that they are, but seriously, just don't use WMP.
It most certainly is not a moot issue, Tom. The DRM lockdown isn't just about music files and ripping tunes from your store bought music CDs. As I have recently determined, several audiobook publishers use the Windows Media Player to transfer audiobook content to mp3 players. Specifically, Overdrive Media Console the vehicle of choice by most public libraries for downloadable audiobooks, uses WMP, and woe unto the user who isn't used to jumping through the clusterfuck of DRM lockdown hoops.
WMP is not used for CD ripping to the exclusion of all other data transferrence matters, therefore this bullshit is very much pertinent.
I signed on the DNC list day one as well and have seen sales call taper off, however I do get a barrage of "surveys" and political spam from scumbags running for office. I'm a registered voter, however I never include my landline to any entity for any reason. Funny, but the political spammers must have accessed the Do Not Call lists to get harvest everyone's phone number so they can harrass the shit out of us with their bullshit campaign messages.
You cite seemingly applicable case law, but in the situation at hand, the issue is not a question of searching a purse. In the T.L.O. case, the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed three distinct questions: (1) what is the proper standard for judging the reasonableness of a school official's search of a student's purse; (2) on the facts of this case, did the school official violate that standard; and (3) whether the exclusionary rule bars the use in a criminal proceeding of evidence that a school official obtained in violation of that standard.
The Supreme Court held (1) that the correct standard is one of reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause; (2) that the standard was violated in this case; and (3) that the evidence obtained as the result of a violation may not be introduced in evidence against T.L.O. in any criminal proceeding, including this delinquency proceeding.
You, however, are comparing apples to owls and it don't fly.
Slashdot Mirror
I signed on the DNC list day one as well and have seen sales call taper off, however I do get a barrage of "surveys" and political spam from scumbags running for office. I'm a registered voter, however I never include my landline to any entity for any reason. Funny, but the political spammers must have accessed the Do Not Call lists to get harvest everyone's phone number so they can harrass the shit out of us with their bullshit campaign messages.
You cite seemingly applicable case law, but in the situation at hand, the issue is not a question of searching a purse. In the T.L.O. case, the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed three distinct questions: (1) what is the proper standard for judging the reasonableness of a school official's search of a student's purse; (2) on the facts of this case, did the school official violate that standard; and (3) whether the exclusionary rule bars the use in a criminal proceeding of evidence that a school official obtained in violation of that standard. The Supreme Court held (1) that the correct standard is one of reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause; (2) that the standard was violated in this case; and (3) that the evidence obtained as the result of a violation may not be introduced in evidence against T.L.O. in any criminal proceeding, including this delinquency proceeding. You, however, are comparing apples to owls and it don't fly.