Sure, everything is exploitable, but some things are a lot harder to exploit than others, and both linux and OSX are poster children for this. To imply that OSX is, or ever will be, as vulnerable to hacks as Windows is puts you well into the "disingenuous" category, I'm afraid.
Microsoft would love everyone to think that OSX is just as vulnerable as Windows is, but the fact is, it isn't. It's a lot better organized operating system code-wise, and patches come swiftly and surely from Apple whenever anyone finds anything. Which is quite a contrast to Microsoft's approach, even if they do have a harder time patching Windows.
<SARCASM>Sure, I have to worry about my Mac getting co-opted into a botnet 24/7, because we all know how many active threats there are to Macs! </SARCASM>
Man, talk about "understating the case."
The honest way to put it is that running Windows is the #1 way to get yourself into trouble. Adware, outright co-opting of your resources, virus problems... Windows boxes are insecure and risky, more so than any other machine, right out of the packaging.
You want security and simplicity of use? Mac isn't just "an" answer, it is the *only* answer. You want security and not too worried about simplicity? Linux or a Mac. You willing to re-work of all Microsoft's incorrect settings, patch all the browser vulnerabilities, play the target role in the hacker version of whack-a-mole, reboot your PC every few days because MS has discovered another severe vulnerability in their spaghetti code? Buy a Windows PC. Endless entertainment for puzzle solvers who don't care about their data security or computer availability. Been there, done that, found the solution, not going back.
More like temptation before the clueless. Because unlike the swine, the moderators do respond to posts; they just do it wrong. Moderation on slashdot is broken. A good portion of the time it is punitive, and when not punitive, it is likely to be used as an inappropriate stand-in for a topical response to the post (meaning, an opinion, rather than a content quality judgement.)
I'm maintaining a curses version of an application and get lots of problem reports where curses gets into a bad state and ceases to function properly
I was reading the thread and shaking my head in amazement until I read your comment. This has been my experience as well -- ncurses is FULL of bugs; a good number of the demos they provided crashed, others didn't do what they were supposed to in the first place. Working with linux terminal configurations is an exercise closely akin to re-imagining voodoo from the start, and versions talking between different operating systems don't work right either, even with the simplest of sequences. Tools depending on ncurses like midnight commander work properly on most linux machines but not on a mac... the list goes on and on. After evaluating curses, I totally trashed the idea of ever using it. I needed something that actually worked. All the time. Across the maximum number of terminal environments. ANSII is indeed the answer.
I had a fairly complex system to write, about 4 megs of C-compiled executable in the end not counting the text control code, had to be text, needed just about everything you can imagine in terms of widgets - menus, drop downs, fairly extensive use of color, text fields, input validation before echo, lists, scrolling columnar subsystems... all this is talking to a big database that does inventory management, 100% live inventory for the website, mailing, UPS and Fedex and Post, box pre-pack estimation, all of which is in the app. Did I *want* to write a text system as well? Hell, no. But ncurses is shite.
So I wrote it. Took a few months, but now I have a system that uses cursor positioning, in-memory layered windowing that is updated to the terminal, never gets out of sync and works with *anything* that uses ANSI across any linux or PC OS. All this silliness about what the cursor does at the end of the line is obviated by reasonable interface design and a little careful cursor positioning. These aren't tough problems, and I can't believe otherwise sophisticated programmers that haunt slashdot would consider them so.
Would I have used curses/ncurses if it worked? Sure. In a heartbeat. Would have saved me a lot of work. But the fact is, for serious projects, it isn't very usable. If I have to debug code, I'd rather debug my own.
The final product runs 100% on Amigas, PC's, Linux, OSX, my flipping *palm pilot*, and my ca. 1970's 6809 Flex system running a terminal emulator. That's what I'm talking about. It "just works." It runs through SSH for remote use or telnet if security isn't an issue, such as fully in-house networking. It's even reasonably pretty, considering its a text interface.
I'm working on my PhD, but I am also into cars. Does that mean that I should post car stuff to Slashdot? On the bulletin board of my computer science department?
I would suggest that your comparison is ill-chosen. Cars are technical; hence, a likely (and often-seen) subject for slashdot. Even though there isn't a section specifically for cars, as far as I know.
Rights, on the other hand, are an area of human activity that intersect with technical issues in significant ways. As such, I have high confidence they are both appropriate for slashdot, and the bulletin board of your computer science department.
On slashdot, the powers-that-be have given at least tacit recognition to the idea by providing a section, a home, as it were, for these kinds of issues.
Even though that may not be the case in your CS department, I suspect that should GWB decide by means of a "signing statement" that every program you write in school is the property of the US Government, that fact could find its way to your bulletin board, and legitimately so.
What I am getting at here is that some subjects include other subjects whether we'd prefer they didn't, or not. Our rights, or lack thereof, affect everything we do. Accordingly, I'm not sure there is a venue where I could be convinced they were inappropriate as subject matter. Online, we have an opportunity to categorize such issues, at least generally, and slashdot has done so - right here. That doesn't make rights issues inappropriate elsewhere, but it surely gives them a legitimate home here.
We can't just say, "ZOMG! Politics is important, so lets make sure that we discuss it everywhere, and put our lives on hold otherwise."
I'm sorry, perhaps I'm simply obtuse, but I fail to see how a story entitled "Bush Claims Mail Can Be Opened Without Warrant" in a political section entitled "Your rights online" while the rest of slashdot pursues technical issues as per usual is in any way "putting our lives on hold otherwise."
I read the story, and commented (several times), because citizen's rights are a concern to me, having people's mail opened is a concern to me, and I'm definitely a "nerd." I find the idea that this issue is not important and/or inappropriate to the site or the particular section on the site to be nearly incomprehensible. Furthermore, "nerds", to me, is a collection of (mostly) pretty smart people with a fair amount of collective power; people, in other words, who I am interested in going over such issues with.
Your milage obviously varies. However... I suppose I have to ask: Why are you even reading the story? Did you fail to read the title, the section, the summary, or were you simply not interested in any of the technical topics offered to you today as alternatives to this story?
If you want to call picking trash off the side of the road slavery.
I call any labor or service obtained by force without the individual's consent inexcusable slavery. License plates, trash pickup, rock breaking, providing sexual favors, cotton picking... it isn't about the sophistication of the task, it is about the means used to obtain it, and the lack of consent.
Don't forget to include unconstutional laws like restriction of firearms, telemarketing limitations, limitations on campaign contributions, banning spam, & criminal registries.
If you'll take a moment to read again, you'll see I was restricting my comments to direct abuses of the first amendment in order to demonstrate that the unequivocal wording hadn't stopped the government from completely violating the obvious intent of the amendment, in contrast to the 13th. Firearms issues are a matter of violation of the 2nd amendment, for instance, so not directly germane to my previous remark, though I certainly agree they are of the same nature. The constitution says "don't do this", and the government goes right ahead and does it anyway.
By no means was I intending to say that the issues I described covered all of the ways the government has willfully violated its constituting authority, and as such become illegitimate by definition. There are more; many, many more.
The distinction you are avoiding is between a war where someone like Bush Jr simply begins attacking a non-aggressive opponent for reasons economic (or imaginary), and a war where an attack is made to defend against such unreasonable actions (eg, Kuwait, WWII.) Aggression on the one hand, defense on the other. Got it now?
Have the gestapo been buy to arrest you yet? No? Then your comment is obviously dead wrong.
The "Gestapo", as you call our authorities, has arrested many, held them without recourse to representation or even a hearing before a court, tortured them. It has also tapped other's phones, opened their mail, put them secret lists (no-fly, for example), and censored them.
If you believe these crimes must be committed against me before I can legitimately object to them or characterize them as representing a negative trend, then I firmly disagree.
No, the 13th is the assignment of the right to enslave and to indenture to the government. Not the abolition of it. Here it is, emphasis mine:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Since you can now be assigned to the class of criminals without a trial or representation (loss of habeas corpus not only applies to people who are "foreign nationals", it also applies to those taken into custody who are "awaiting such determination"), the government now has a direct path to enslave you without anything even vaguely resembling due process.
This is a perfect example of why other amendments don't have clauses that include "except" and other pussyfooting around. For instance, the first amendment says...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Which, technically speaking, is a lot harder to turn into a tool to use against the citizens. Of course, they managed to do it anyway, what with our money containing Christian exhortations, prayer in congress, free speech "zones", permits for gatherings over a certain size, curfews, direct censorship of the press, suppression of various religions and religious practices (for example, polygamy and churches that practice it)... all of these things are crimes against the constitution and have managed to navigate the shoals represented by the unconditional language it is written in.
Imagine the potential for abuse of the 13th. Of course, it is already happening; people who are not criminals, but merely victims of government abuse, are in prison and are in fact doing slave labor for the government as part of that abuse.
It is highly unfortunate that the framers of the 13th amendment could not see that forced slavery is a bad idea in any context. Personally, I view the 13th amendment as the single most poorly crafted section of the constitution.
The fact that the current regime has made it crystal clear that they feel they have the right to take any action they desire, regardless of the downstream implications, the poor survey results, or the "legality" or such actions...that is scary as shit, folks.
We live in a dictatorship. Bush can - and does - do anything he wants. His oath of office has been violated, he flouts the laws of the country, he holds prisoners without recourse to representation or even the opportunity to go in front of a judge, he tortures people, he lies to the public, starts wars of aggression, reads your mail, taps your phone...
The saddest thing is that no one is going to do anything about it. So I guess freedom and liberty were all just inertial effects we can thank the founders for. They're certainly gone now.
...this has nothing to do w/ technology or email at all.
No, of course not. Because technology oriented people never use or work with standard mail. It has nothing to do with you at all. Don't worry, it'll just affect those old people you see from time to time being wheeled into the rest homes. And those troublesome immigrants.
Same thing for phone taps, loss of habeas corpus, misuse of the commerce clause, ex post facto laws and punishments, free speech "zones", government support of religion, the prosecution of a war of aggression based on lies... none of these things have anything to do with you.
Hey, did you know Sony's PS3 won't play Blueray disks back in 720p?
For most humans, I suspect the answer can be summed up as "triage." You pick the weak ones; animals. People fight back much more effectively. Pointing fingers and such. As far as I am concerned, you are a bunch of serial murderers.
When a cat kills a mouse and plays with it, but doesn't eat it, is that necessity?
I suspect that the answer is yes. Over many centuries, we selected cats that are ever-better rodent killers because it conserved our grain (and reduced disease, though we caught on to that a little late); they are slaves to their own natures, and those natures are a consequence of long term actions of ours.
Playing with a mouse has a straightforward predatory function, as well — it is good practice. I have seen mice go unharmed for quite some time while the cat continues to catch the mouse "at the last minute."
If we want cats to not be such fine predators, we're going to have to de-tune them ourselves, and it will take some number of generations.
As a semi-related aside, my sweetheart pointed out to me that cats today seem quite a bit less "curious" than they did when we were kids (we're both in our fifties.) Curious in the sense of "curiosity killed the cat." As soon as she said it, I recognized what she was talking about. When I was a kid, cats were always being found under car hoods in bloody chunks, crushed in the road, etc. Today, I rarely see or hear about these types of incidents. Maybe one or two in the road per year. Yet my small town has a very strong population of strays, not to mention the cats with homes that prowl around. When I was a kid, the only time we saw cats was when they had come to a bad end. I suspect this is a broad evolutionary change. Perhaps the environment, the dangers in it that is, selected the most curious cats out.
On the contrary, I have high confidence it could be.
The people you describe are, by definition in my view, redeemable in the sense that they can repay the consequences of their acts. This is because their acts are petty, and repayment can always be made to society for a petty act. Money, property, work product. If they re-offend, further payment can be extracted, ad infinitum. To be unredeemable, one must transcend the petty in the first place so that repayment is impossible (taking life, limb or otherwise causing un-healable personal injury), and then demonstrate an inability to stay clear of further acts of equivalent seriousness. At that point, I'd put someone down without remorse.
The voice recording will get the whole thing suppressed as evidence in most states.
You want that recording to go to the local paper and radio station, to youtube, and to digg. Not the court. You want everyone in the entire state or province to know those cops lied. It is the only way you can leverage power of your own. In a courtroom, you have none, and I maintain that if you do not record, you had best meekly and mildly conform to any request for a search. Otherwise you will learn how unequal the balance of power really is.
Personally, I believe it should be allowed in any contact with any agency of government, as they now hold all the cards.
I believe it should be allowed because they are, in the most precise sense of the word, our employees.
This situation is typically far too limited for a lawyer to resolve. You claim you did not consent; the cop says you did, in one word: "yes." Now, how many "holes" do you think can be punched into that story? Seriously? The cops stick to their side, you stick to yours.
Now, consider this: If you had something to hide -- say, the cops found (or "found", since you pissed them off) some contraband. Just how long do you think the court will spend on that single declaration of "yes" or "no"? You're going to jail. Now.
The fact is, the cops, and the courts, hold all the power. The lawyer is there to earn money, and will get it no matter what happens to you. Once you realize that, perhaps you'll have a little less faith in what they can get done on your behalf. You have to change the situation so that you have the power. Record, and let the entire world know the cop is lying. That's the solution. That's the only solution.
I observe that society will not let them have any job that is not utterly menial; I observe, particularly in the case of sexual offenders who are listed for life, that they can never assume that the look they just got from the old lady next door isn't brimming with hatred, that they are proscribed from living in various areas (which may be entire towns) and I observe that society is so willing to commit these people to the bottom-most rung of existence that they are willing to ruin their own freedoms to do so. I look at all this, and I conclude that even if the person doesn't know it, they have no hope of being anything other than a gutter scraping, economically speaking. And economics, in a very practical sense, affects everything. My hope for them is gone.
You seem to know an awful lot about this person whom you've condemned as unredeemable person.
Not me; society. I don't think you really understood what I wrote. Maybe you should read again.
I don't see that justice is improved by assigning a punishment other than the one that fits the crime just because of their past difficulties. 6 armed robbery convictions should have a sentence of 6xa single armed robbery conviction.
I disagree. If someone cannot learn not to harm their fellow citizens, something further must be done. Something serious. Armed robbery isn't at the same level as refusing to wear a seat-belt, marrying two consenting spouses, or smoking a joint.
Yes, and it also includes your credit record. Funny that you mention societal classes, since discrimination on the basis of credit record is also a class-bias: discrimination against the poor
No argument from me. I do not believe that either course of action is sensible. Were it up to me, I would close this door to job discrimination, as well as the one that allows searching criminal records.
The connection everyone seems to make is this: once a screw-up, always a screw-up. In the words of your own immortal deity: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Ah. You have mistaken me for a religious person. Let me assure you that I am not. I am the perfect definition of an atheist; I hold no belief in any god or gods in any degree, small or large. And I do not agree, once a screw up, always a screw up. However, I observe, a screw-up over and over again needs something more convincing to get them to stop. Given that the crime costs other people life or limb, it isn't worth trying to re-integrate the criminal after the second time, and at that point, under those specific circumstances, I would support executing the criminal.
Finally, to quote Mark Twain on the subject: "The only truly American criminal class is Congress."
Please explain why you feel this quote is relevant. Twain was observing that the American political system, unique in and of itself, creates opportunities for new types of crimes for those involved in it, and that they succumb to temptation and commit them. This is true. How would you apply his wisdom in the current thread?
On the plus side, the sex offender registry has been so damaged by abuse (adding scores of people who aren't dangerous, or even "sex" offenders), it will soon be to the point where there's no shame being on the list.
Ouch. This isn't a plus side. Shame, or at least remorse, is appropriate. For a reasonable length of time. Not a lifetime. In any case, the problem is that someone on these lifetime lists can't re-integrate into society, not because of shame, but because when there is a choice between two candidates for a job, the sex offender is always going to be cast aside. Even in your example, this will happen. Pissed on a neighbor's car? And the other applicant didn't? They're getting the job - not you. What we end up with is a reserve of people who cannot, under any circumstances, recover from the punishment they have received and re-integrate with society. This hammers them, their families, and eventually will turn around and bite society when someone who has been wronged in this way turns around and deals punishment back to the system, probably in more than equal measure.
Mark my words, it is as inevitable as water flowing downhill.
Not really. I think the fact that people were put on them ex post facto is monumentally bad, and I think the reasoning that "registration is not punishment" is utterly unsound, and I think the trend towards calling everyone from your basic person attracted to 16...18-year old bodies to the fellow who pees in a bush to streakers "sex offenders" is nothing less than stupid, and I think the "you can never get off this list" is downright suicidal behavior for society — eventually, someone will snap over this mistreatment. But I am not against the community keeping a close eye on actual pedophiles and violent offenders for a reasonable length of time, say a year or three. At that point, I think the public record should be cleared so they can have a chance at real jobs and opportunities. A non-public record needs to be kept so that re-offense results in harsher punishment. Such as death. That's what I think.
In New York state sex offenders can now be locked up in psych wards after their prison term is finished if a shrink decides that they are still a risk.
I view psychology to date as a failed science in any case and so I would never support involving any member of the psychiatric community in any legal proceeding. People are too different for any such broad-stroking them into classes based on the opinion of known fad followers. This week it's Jung, next week its Froyd, then it's regression therapy, the blatant attempts at making bad metaphor and then trying to make them fit by force upon the public is reminiscent of religion to me. The very poorest kind of reasoning.
State clearly that you do not submit to any searches
This is a dead-certain way to get searched, just so you know. If you want to take this approach, you need a hidden video camera and sensitive microphones in your cabin and all around the exterior of your car, as well as a thoroughly and professionally hidden recording system. Which will serve you well in court, but only one time. Because the fact that you pulled this off will circulate through the entire police force in about a day. Perhaps even the entire nation.
You can claim you said this (and you can say it, too) but the cop will simply deny it, and your credibility cannot overpower the cops in court without an entire car full of sober, socially respected companions (I'm talking, bankers, lawyers, doctors, judges, cops.) A video recording, at least at the moment, can do the job for you.
The bottom line: Any action you take that depends upon the sense of justice of the cop, or your word against theirs, has a very, very low probability of succeeding.
I know that if I were thrown into prison for something stupid, and I got assraped, my first stop out of jail would be to go pick up some cached firearms and my second stop would be the DA's house, the third the Judge's, and so on. Oh sure, it wouldn't help me - I'd probably just go right back in.
The system actually encourages this kind of thinking by making sure that your job, possessions, friendships, future employability, finances and family relationships all suffer to their very limits, as well as the abuse above and beyond simple incarceration you would suffer in prison. It is only a matter of time before someone does exactly what you're describing, and once it starts... I doubt it will stop.
Also, one should not forget the thirteenth amendment which specifically offers you up, as a criminal, to the ranks of legal slavery and indentured servitude.
Just a matter of time. If not you, then some other infuriated and abused citizen.
If someone chooses to break the laws governing the citizenry, they are then rejecting the citizenry. Does that mean that they are no longer citizens? Socrates felt so, as outlined in Plato's The Apology of Socrates.
The problem with creating a permanent criminal class is that there is no possibility of redemption or reform. The only reasonable path is to have two, and only two, classes of crimes. The unredeemable, in which case imprisonment is life without parole, or death; and the redeemable, where the criminal's debt to society is considered 100% paid upon completion of the assigned punishment or rehabilitative course.
By releasing people back into society who have no hope of ever climbing out of the gutter, we continually increase a class of people who not only can do us harm, but have already proven they will, and who are motivated, by us, to do it ( or something else criminal) again. The motivation is simple: We won't let them do anything else.
Today, a background check is considered normal in order to get a job. This includes your criminal records, if any. If you have a criminal record, you're not going to get any job for which there is competition (in other words, most of them.) You're a permanent criminal, unredeemable, permanently evil and a bottom-feeder.
what happens when this ubergov database gets hacked.
What makes you think it will need to be hacked? You can go right on the web and check to see if your neighbor is a sex offender today. The information isn't secret or restricted. Exactly the opposite, in fact. The government thinks you should know. Odds are excellent they'll think you should know if your neighbor is a mugger or a thief or a drug user or a mad bomber as well. Or... if they might be at some point in the future! After all, you did buy bleach at the grocery store last week...
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, everything is exploitable, but some things are a lot harder to exploit than others, and both linux and OSX are poster children for this. To imply that OSX is, or ever will be, as vulnerable to hacks as Windows is puts you well into the "disingenuous" category, I'm afraid.
Microsoft would love everyone to think that OSX is just as vulnerable as Windows is, but the fact is, it isn't. It's a lot better organized operating system code-wise, and patches come swiftly and surely from Apple whenever anyone finds anything. Which is quite a contrast to Microsoft's approach, even if they do have a harder time patching Windows.
May be? MAY be? MAY BE?
<SARCASM>Sure, I have to worry about my Mac getting co-opted into a botnet 24/7, because we all know how many active threats there are to Macs! </SARCASM>
Man, talk about "understating the case."
The honest way to put it is that running Windows is the #1 way to get yourself into trouble. Adware, outright co-opting of your resources, virus problems... Windows boxes are insecure and risky, more so than any other machine, right out of the packaging.
You want security and simplicity of use? Mac isn't just "an" answer, it is the *only* answer. You want security and not too worried about simplicity? Linux or a Mac. You willing to re-work of all Microsoft's incorrect settings, patch all the browser vulnerabilities, play the target role in the hacker version of whack-a-mole, reboot your PC every few days because MS has discovered another severe vulnerability in their spaghetti code? Buy a Windows PC. Endless entertainment for puzzle solvers who don't care about their data security or computer availability. Been there, done that, found the solution, not going back.
More like temptation before the clueless. Because unlike the swine, the moderators do respond to posts; they just do it wrong. Moderation on slashdot is broken. A good portion of the time it is punitive, and when not punitive, it is likely to be used as an inappropriate stand-in for a topical response to the post (meaning, an opinion, rather than a content quality judgement.)
More on moderation here.
Actually, I could. I kept all the rights. I'd have to think about it.
I was reading the thread and shaking my head in amazement until I read your comment. This has been my experience as well -- ncurses is FULL of bugs; a good number of the demos they provided crashed, others didn't do what they were supposed to in the first place. Working with linux terminal configurations is an exercise closely akin to re-imagining voodoo from the start, and versions talking between different operating systems don't work right either, even with the simplest of sequences. Tools depending on ncurses like midnight commander work properly on most linux machines but not on a mac... the list goes on and on. After evaluating curses, I totally trashed the idea of ever using it. I needed something that actually worked. All the time. Across the maximum number of terminal environments. ANSII is indeed the answer.
I had a fairly complex system to write, about 4 megs of C-compiled executable in the end not counting the text control code, had to be text, needed just about everything you can imagine in terms of widgets - menus, drop downs, fairly extensive use of color, text fields, input validation before echo, lists, scrolling columnar subsystems... all this is talking to a big database that does inventory management, 100% live inventory for the website, mailing, UPS and Fedex and Post, box pre-pack estimation, all of which is in the app. Did I *want* to write a text system as well? Hell, no. But ncurses is shite.
So I wrote it. Took a few months, but now I have a system that uses cursor positioning, in-memory layered windowing that is updated to the terminal, never gets out of sync and works with *anything* that uses ANSI across any linux or PC OS. All this silliness about what the cursor does at the end of the line is obviated by reasonable interface design and a little careful cursor positioning. These aren't tough problems, and I can't believe otherwise sophisticated programmers that haunt slashdot would consider them so.
Would I have used curses/ncurses if it worked? Sure. In a heartbeat. Would have saved me a lot of work. But the fact is, for serious projects, it isn't very usable. If I have to debug code, I'd rather debug my own.
The final product runs 100% on Amigas, PC's, Linux, OSX, my flipping *palm pilot*, and my ca. 1970's 6809 Flex system running a terminal emulator. That's what I'm talking about. It "just works." It runs through SSH for remote use or telnet if security isn't an issue, such as fully in-house networking. It's even reasonably pretty, considering its a text interface.
I would suggest that your comparison is ill-chosen. Cars are technical; hence, a likely (and often-seen) subject for slashdot. Even though there isn't a section specifically for cars, as far as I know.
Rights, on the other hand, are an area of human activity that intersect with technical issues in significant ways. As such, I have high confidence they are both appropriate for slashdot, and the bulletin board of your computer science department.
On slashdot, the powers-that-be have given at least tacit recognition to the idea by providing a section, a home, as it were, for these kinds of issues.
Even though that may not be the case in your CS department, I suspect that should GWB decide by means of a "signing statement" that every program you write in school is the property of the US Government, that fact could find its way to your bulletin board, and legitimately so.
What I am getting at here is that some subjects include other subjects whether we'd prefer they didn't, or not. Our rights, or lack thereof, affect everything we do. Accordingly, I'm not sure there is a venue where I could be convinced they were inappropriate as subject matter. Online, we have an opportunity to categorize such issues, at least generally, and slashdot has done so - right here. That doesn't make rights issues inappropriate elsewhere, but it surely gives them a legitimate home here.
I'm sorry, perhaps I'm simply obtuse, but I fail to see how a story entitled "Bush Claims Mail Can Be Opened Without Warrant" in a political section entitled "Your rights online" while the rest of slashdot pursues technical issues as per usual is in any way "putting our lives on hold otherwise."
I read the story, and commented (several times), because citizen's rights are a concern to me, having people's mail opened is a concern to me, and I'm definitely a "nerd." I find the idea that this issue is not important and/or inappropriate to the site or the particular section on the site to be nearly incomprehensible. Furthermore, "nerds", to me, is a collection of (mostly) pretty smart people with a fair amount of collective power; people, in other words, who I am interested in going over such issues with.
Your milage obviously varies. However... I suppose I have to ask: Why are you even reading the story? Did you fail to read the title, the section, the summary, or were you simply not interested in any of the technical topics offered to you today as alternatives to this story?
I call any labor or service obtained by force without the individual's consent inexcusable slavery. License plates, trash pickup, rock breaking, providing sexual favors, cotton picking... it isn't about the sophistication of the task, it is about the means used to obtain it, and the lack of consent.
If you'll take a moment to read again, you'll see I was restricting my comments to direct abuses of the first amendment in order to demonstrate that the unequivocal wording hadn't stopped the government from completely violating the obvious intent of the amendment, in contrast to the 13th. Firearms issues are a matter of violation of the 2nd amendment, for instance, so not directly germane to my previous remark, though I certainly agree they are of the same nature. The constitution says "don't do this", and the government goes right ahead and does it anyway.
By no means was I intending to say that the issues I described covered all of the ways the government has willfully violated its constituting authority, and as such become illegitimate by definition. There are more; many, many more.
The distinction you are avoiding is between a war where someone like Bush Jr simply begins attacking a non-aggressive opponent for reasons economic (or imaginary), and a war where an attack is made to defend against such unreasonable actions (eg, Kuwait, WWII.) Aggression on the one hand, defense on the other. Got it now?
The "Gestapo", as you call our authorities, has arrested many, held them without recourse to representation or even a hearing before a court, tortured them. It has also tapped other's phones, opened their mail, put them secret lists (no-fly, for example), and censored them.
If you believe these crimes must be committed against me before I can legitimately object to them or characterize them as representing a negative trend, then I firmly disagree.
No, the 13th is the assignment of the right to enslave and to indenture to the government. Not the abolition of it. Here it is, emphasis mine:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Since you can now be assigned to the class of criminals without a trial or representation (loss of habeas corpus not only applies to people who are "foreign nationals", it also applies to those taken into custody who are "awaiting such determination"), the government now has a direct path to enslave you without anything even vaguely resembling due process.
This is a perfect example of why other amendments don't have clauses that include "except" and other pussyfooting around. For instance, the first amendment says...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Which, technically speaking, is a lot harder to turn into a tool to use against the citizens. Of course, they managed to do it anyway, what with our money containing Christian exhortations, prayer in congress, free speech "zones", permits for gatherings over a certain size, curfews, direct censorship of the press, suppression of various religions and religious practices (for example, polygamy and churches that practice it)... all of these things are crimes against the constitution and have managed to navigate the shoals represented by the unconditional language it is written in.
Imagine the potential for abuse of the 13th. Of course, it is already happening; people who are not criminals, but merely victims of government abuse, are in prison and are in fact doing slave labor for the government as part of that abuse.
It is highly unfortunate that the framers of the 13th amendment could not see that forced slavery is a bad idea in any context. Personally, I view the 13th amendment as the single most poorly crafted section of the constitution.
We live in a dictatorship. Bush can - and does - do anything he wants. His oath of office has been violated, he flouts the laws of the country, he holds prisoners without recourse to representation or even the opportunity to go in front of a judge, he tortures people, he lies to the public, starts wars of aggression, reads your mail, taps your phone...
The saddest thing is that no one is going to do anything about it. So I guess freedom and liberty were all just inertial effects we can thank the founders for. They're certainly gone now.
No, of course not. Because technology oriented people never use or work with standard mail. It has nothing to do with you at all. Don't worry, it'll just affect those old people you see from time to time being wheeled into the rest homes. And those troublesome immigrants.
Same thing for phone taps, loss of habeas corpus, misuse of the commerce clause, ex post facto laws and punishments, free speech "zones", government support of religion, the prosecution of a war of aggression based on lies... none of these things have anything to do with you.
Hey, did you know Sony's PS3 won't play Blueray disks back in 720p?
For most humans, I suspect the answer can be summed up as "triage." You pick the weak ones; animals. People fight back much more effectively. Pointing fingers and such. As far as I am concerned, you are a bunch of serial murderers.
I suspect that the answer is yes. Over many centuries, we selected cats that are ever-better rodent killers because it conserved our grain (and reduced disease, though we caught on to that a little late); they are slaves to their own natures, and those natures are a consequence of long term actions of ours.
Playing with a mouse has a straightforward predatory function, as well — it is good practice. I have seen mice go unharmed for quite some time while the cat continues to catch the mouse "at the last minute."
If we want cats to not be such fine predators, we're going to have to de-tune them ourselves, and it will take some number of generations.
As a semi-related aside, my sweetheart pointed out to me that cats today seem quite a bit less "curious" than they did when we were kids (we're both in our fifties.) Curious in the sense of "curiosity killed the cat." As soon as she said it, I recognized what she was talking about. When I was a kid, cats were always being found under car hoods in bloody chunks, crushed in the road, etc. Today, I rarely see or hear about these types of incidents. Maybe one or two in the road per year. Yet my small town has a very strong population of strays, not to mention the cats with homes that prowl around. When I was a kid, the only time we saw cats was when they had come to a bad end. I suspect this is a broad evolutionary change. Perhaps the environment, the dangers in it that is, selected the most curious cats out.
On the contrary, I have high confidence it could be.
The people you describe are, by definition in my view, redeemable in the sense that they can repay the consequences of their acts. This is because their acts are petty, and repayment can always be made to society for a petty act. Money, property, work product. If they re-offend, further payment can be extracted, ad infinitum. To be unredeemable, one must transcend the petty in the first place so that repayment is impossible (taking life, limb or otherwise causing un-healable personal injury), and then demonstrate an inability to stay clear of further acts of equivalent seriousness. At that point, I'd put someone down without remorse.
You want that recording to go to the local paper and radio station, to youtube, and to digg. Not the court. You want everyone in the entire state or province to know those cops lied. It is the only way you can leverage power of your own. In a courtroom, you have none, and I maintain that if you do not record, you had best meekly and mildly conform to any request for a search. Otherwise you will learn how unequal the balance of power really is.
I believe it should be allowed because they are, in the most precise sense of the word, our employees.
This situation is typically far too limited for a lawyer to resolve. You claim you did not consent; the cop says you did, in one word: "yes." Now, how many "holes" do you think can be punched into that story? Seriously? The cops stick to their side, you stick to yours.
Now, consider this: If you had something to hide -- say, the cops found (or "found", since you pissed them off) some contraband. Just how long do you think the court will spend on that single declaration of "yes" or "no"? You're going to jail. Now.
The fact is, the cops, and the courts, hold all the power. The lawyer is there to earn money, and will get it no matter what happens to you. Once you realize that, perhaps you'll have a little less faith in what they can get done on your behalf. You have to change the situation so that you have the power. Record, and let the entire world know the cop is lying. That's the solution. That's the only solution.
I observe that society will not let them have any job that is not utterly menial; I observe, particularly in the case of sexual offenders who are listed for life, that they can never assume that the look they just got from the old lady next door isn't brimming with hatred, that they are proscribed from living in various areas (which may be entire towns) and I observe that society is so willing to commit these people to the bottom-most rung of existence that they are willing to ruin their own freedoms to do so. I look at all this, and I conclude that even if the person doesn't know it, they have no hope of being anything other than a gutter scraping, economically speaking. And economics, in a very practical sense, affects everything. My hope for them is gone.
Not me; society. I don't think you really understood what I wrote. Maybe you should read again.
I disagree. If someone cannot learn not to harm their fellow citizens, something further must be done. Something serious. Armed robbery isn't at the same level as refusing to wear a seat-belt, marrying two consenting spouses, or smoking a joint.
No argument from me. I do not believe that either course of action is sensible. Were it up to me, I would close this door to job discrimination, as well as the one that allows searching criminal records.
Ah. You have mistaken me for a religious person. Let me assure you that I am not. I am the perfect definition of an atheist; I hold no belief in any god or gods in any degree, small or large. And I do not agree, once a screw up, always a screw up. However, I observe, a screw-up over and over again needs something more convincing to get them to stop. Given that the crime costs other people life or limb, it isn't worth trying to re-integrate the criminal after the second time, and at that point, under those specific circumstances, I would support executing the criminal.
Please explain why you feel this quote is relevant. Twain was observing that the American political system, unique in and of itself, creates opportunities for new types of crimes for those involved in it, and that they succumb to temptation and commit them. This is true. How would you apply his wisdom in the current thread?
Ouch. This isn't a plus side. Shame, or at least remorse, is appropriate. For a reasonable length of time. Not a lifetime. In any case, the problem is that someone on these lifetime lists can't re-integrate into society, not because of shame, but because when there is a choice between two candidates for a job, the sex offender is always going to be cast aside. Even in your example, this will happen. Pissed on a neighbor's car? And the other applicant didn't? They're getting the job - not you. What we end up with is a reserve of people who cannot, under any circumstances, recover from the punishment they have received and re-integrate with society. This hammers them, their families, and eventually will turn around and bite society when someone who has been wronged in this way turns around and deals punishment back to the system, probably in more than equal measure.
Mark my words, it is as inevitable as water flowing downhill.
Not really. I think the fact that people were put on them ex post facto is monumentally bad, and I think the reasoning that "registration is not punishment" is utterly unsound, and I think the trend towards calling everyone from your basic person attracted to 16...18-year old bodies to the fellow who pees in a bush to streakers "sex offenders" is nothing less than stupid, and I think the "you can never get off this list" is downright suicidal behavior for society — eventually, someone will snap over this mistreatment. But I am not against the community keeping a close eye on actual pedophiles and violent offenders for a reasonable length of time, say a year or three. At that point, I think the public record should be cleared so they can have a chance at real jobs and opportunities. A non-public record needs to be kept so that re-offense results in harsher punishment. Such as death. That's what I think.
I view psychology to date as a failed science in any case and so I would never support involving any member of the psychiatric community in any legal proceeding. People are too different for any such broad-stroking them into classes based on the opinion of known fad followers. This week it's Jung, next week its Froyd, then it's regression therapy, the blatant attempts at making bad metaphor and then trying to make them fit by force upon the public is reminiscent of religion to me. The very poorest kind of reasoning.
No. All he has to do is say you didn't refuse.
This is a dead-certain way to get searched, just so you know. If you want to take this approach, you need a hidden video camera and sensitive microphones in your cabin and all around the exterior of your car, as well as a thoroughly and professionally hidden recording system. Which will serve you well in court, but only one time. Because the fact that you pulled this off will circulate through the entire police force in about a day. Perhaps even the entire nation.
You can claim you said this (and you can say it, too) but the cop will simply deny it, and your credibility cannot overpower the cops in court without an entire car full of sober, socially respected companions (I'm talking, bankers, lawyers, doctors, judges, cops.) A video recording, at least at the moment, can do the job for you.
The bottom line: Any action you take that depends upon the sense of justice of the cop, or your word against theirs, has a very, very low probability of succeeding.
The system actually encourages this kind of thinking by making sure that your job, possessions, friendships, future employability, finances and family relationships all suffer to their very limits, as well as the abuse above and beyond simple incarceration you would suffer in prison. It is only a matter of time before someone does exactly what you're describing, and once it starts... I doubt it will stop.
Also, one should not forget the thirteenth amendment which specifically offers you up, as a criminal, to the ranks of legal slavery and indentured servitude.
Just a matter of time. If not you, then some other infuriated and abused citizen.
The problem with creating a permanent criminal class is that there is no possibility of redemption or reform. The only reasonable path is to have two, and only two, classes of crimes. The unredeemable, in which case imprisonment is life without parole, or death; and the redeemable, where the criminal's debt to society is considered 100% paid upon completion of the assigned punishment or rehabilitative course.
By releasing people back into society who have no hope of ever climbing out of the gutter, we continually increase a class of people who not only can do us harm, but have already proven they will, and who are motivated, by us, to do it ( or something else criminal) again. The motivation is simple: We won't let them do anything else.
Today, a background check is considered normal in order to get a job. This includes your criminal records, if any. If you have a criminal record, you're not going to get any job for which there is competition (in other words, most of them.) You're a permanent criminal, unredeemable, permanently evil and a bottom-feeder.
What makes you think it will need to be hacked? You can go right on the web and check to see if your neighbor is a sex offender today. The information isn't secret or restricted. Exactly the opposite, in fact. The government thinks you should know. Odds are excellent they'll think you should know if your neighbor is a mugger or a thief or a drug user or a mad bomber as well. Or... if they might be at some point in the future! After all, you did buy bleach at the grocery store last week...