Well, invasion of privacy can often be grounds for prosecution, but you have to be able to prove it occured. And if the government has demonstrated anything in technologicaly related cases its that they really don't understand how computers work. I doubt a criminal charge would be effective. Probally wouldn't get more than a M6. What I think would send a clear message to malware writers is a civil suit. But then again, a lot of malware writers hide so incredibly well, or may not even be in this country. So in short..... fat chance in hell of busted them anytime soon
Most photographers hate flash... it fucks up detail.... granted camera phones suck at pictures to begin with, but this is an added level of suck because people can't use the damn things responsibly
While this saddens me... i quote my friend Josh:
Josh: what
Me: Ashcroft
Josh: resigning
Josh: good
Josh: way too right wing
Josh: it's his fault the censorship went on
Josh: see ya nazi, I like boobs SlashX86: happy days! Now I don't have to be afraid of watching porn
Here is my philosophy...
I like 311, good band, but I don't like them enough to shell out 20 bucks for a CD. So I will pirate it. Now I also like P.O.D. I like them a lot, I will shell out 20 for their CD. So, long story short, the RIAA is only gonna get 20 bucks out of me anyways.
when the patriot act was up for renewal the ACLU was asked to point to specific abuses of it. There was not one abuse. The accusations that the patriot act hurts americans is meaningless democratic bitching.
Seems quite interesting. What would be really nice would be the option of connecting to a network wirelessly in order to access video files stored on other computers in the house. Maybe even a file browser akin to Konquorer for the computer illeterate in my house. I want one!
Ok you are just pissing me off
I realize there is a difference between a writ and stare decisis. Improper to turn it into a verb.... for the sake of convience I did that, I know its not a verb.
WTF do you mean by this???
Oh okay, no wonder you don't know how the Supreme Court works, you're a political science major.
fucking troll
True.... I however feel that since the SCOTUS has made a ruling on this the Congress will be reluctant to make any changes for fear of the Court striking the addition as unconstitional
Unless I'm mistaken, status quo remains and this can continue to be repeatedly brought up until the issue finally does get ruled on by the court. Correct?
Not nessasarily. Usually once the Court refuses to hear something the lower courts will honor that position as law. This is what is called a Stare Decisis ruling. Now this ruling is now only pertinent to the district court in which it occured. Other juristicions will usually look to a juristiction that has already ruled on a similar case before issuing its ruling. (The fact the Court has stare decisised this one is gonna do wonders to advance this on other juristictions as well.
The RIAA could theoretically file again in another juristiction, but may be denied by the Court on grounds that there is a SCOTUS ruling in place on the matter (stare decisis does not carry the same weight as a Court ruling). For examples sake, the Pro-life crowd is reluctant to challenge Roe v. Wade until the Court is firmly in conservative hands. If you have a case before the SCOTUS you usually can not be heard again for decades (seperate but equal 1890's; brown v. board 1954... long ass time). So in short.... the RIAA is effectively REAMED.
I always knew mixing political science and computers could be fun:)
Slashdot Mirror
and this surprises you how? ;)
Well, invasion of privacy can often be grounds for prosecution, but you have to be able to prove it occured. And if the government has demonstrated anything in technologicaly related cases its that they really don't understand how computers work. I doubt a criminal charge would be effective. Probally wouldn't get more than a M6. What I think would send a clear message to malware writers is a civil suit. But then again, a lot of malware writers hide so incredibly well, or may not even be in this country. So in short..... fat chance in hell of busted them anytime soon
Most certainly NOT SP2!!! It fucks way too much stuff up
Most photographers hate flash... it fucks up detail.... granted camera phones suck at pictures to begin with, but this is an added level of suck because people can't use the damn things responsibly
While this saddens me... i quote my friend Josh: Josh: what Me: Ashcroft Josh: resigning Josh: good Josh: way too right wing Josh: it's his fault the censorship went on Josh: see ya nazi, I like boobs SlashX86: happy days! Now I don't have to be afraid of watching porn
Here is my philosophy... I like 311, good band, but I don't like them enough to shell out 20 bucks for a CD. So I will pirate it. Now I also like P.O.D. I like them a lot, I will shell out 20 for their CD. So, long story short, the RIAA is only gonna get 20 bucks out of me anyways.
when the patriot act was up for renewal the ACLU was asked to point to specific abuses of it. There was not one abuse. The accusations that the patriot act hurts americans is meaningless democratic bitching.
The Secret Service was a part of the Treasury Department from its inception until 2001 when it joined the Department of Homeland Security.
Seems quite interesting. What would be really nice would be the option of connecting to a network wirelessly in order to access video files stored on other computers in the house. Maybe even a file browser akin to Konquorer for the computer illeterate in my house. I want one!
I like Open Office if just for the fact that it is not MS. I really wish the spell checker was better though. Get that down and I'll be set for life.
Ok you are just pissing me off I realize there is a difference between a writ and stare decisis. Improper to turn it into a verb.... for the sake of convience I did that, I know its not a verb. WTF do you mean by this??? Oh okay, no wonder you don't know how the Supreme Court works, you're a political science major. fucking troll
True.... I however feel that since the SCOTUS has made a ruling on this the Congress will be reluctant to make any changes for fear of the Court striking the addition as unconstitional
Not nessasarily. Usually once the Court refuses to hear something the lower courts will honor that position as law. This is what is called a Stare Decisis ruling. Now this ruling is now only pertinent to the district court in which it occured. Other juristicions will usually look to a juristiction that has already ruled on a similar case before issuing its ruling. (The fact the Court has stare decisised this one is gonna do wonders to advance this on other juristictions as well.
The RIAA could theoretically file again in another juristiction, but may be denied by the Court on grounds that there is a SCOTUS ruling in place on the matter (stare decisis does not carry the same weight as a Court ruling). For examples sake, the Pro-life crowd is reluctant to challenge Roe v. Wade until the Court is firmly in conservative hands. If you have a case before the SCOTUS you usually can not be heard again for decades (seperate but equal 1890's; brown v. board 1954... long ass time). So in short.... the RIAA is effectively REAMED.
I always knew mixing political science and computers could be fun :)