And precisely why should they? Obviously the quickest defence would be to produce his wife alive and well. It disturbs me greatly when people start saying that the defence hasn't proven his innocence. That is not how the justice system is supposed to work in the US. It is up to the prosecutor to prove that he killed his wife, not for the defence to prove she ran away. The defence's only job is to highlight weaknesses in the prosecutor's case. This may include providing an alternative theory as to what happened, as they have done in this case. (She left the country) The purpose of the defense is to create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jurors. Saying 'she went to Russia' may or may not create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors in and of itself. What we know is:
No one has seen her since September 3, 2006.
The prosecution has assumed that Hans Reiser murdered her based on his erratic behavior immediately following her disappearance and the fact that...
...when they arrested him, he had $9,000 on him and his passport.
The prosecution has yet to find the body, despite having performed extensive searches in the area.
When Nina Reiser disappeared, she left $4500 in the bank untouched, she had paid a bunch of bills and was about the pay her rent, and she had $2000 in cash in her apartment, which was also untouched.
Hans Reiser has been most uncooperative with the authorities.
Has presented some forensic evidence (in her minivan) that suggests that she was murdered or at least seriously injured at the time of her disappearance
The defense has provided some statements from prosecution witnesses that may create reasonable doubt, but hasn't produced a shred of evidence (so far) that backs up Reiser's defense. To be fair, the prosecution is only just about to rest its case, though.
And we can deduce that:
Either she left involuntarily (was kidnapped), she left in an awful hurry, she was murdered by someone other than Hans Reiser, or she was murdered by Hans Reiser
The prosecution has presented lots of (so far) mostly circumstantial evidence that suggests that Hans Reiser may have murdered Nina Reiser and was prepared to leave the country in order to avoid getting caught
The defense still hasn't shown when or how Nina Reiser left the country with $0 and without a vehicle or a cell phone.
The onus is on the defense to back up its claims at this point.
But what I do know? My entire legal expertise hangs solely on what I read in layman's periodicals and books, what I read on the Internet, and, of course, watching shows like "Law & Order".:-D
Yeah, that's nothing the jury is going to see, though.
Here's what's bad in my mind:
Morasch testified that [Nina Reiser] had recently paid her utility bills and even paid $150 to register her car with the California Department of Motor Vehicles. The testimony was gleaned by Hora in a bid to convince jurors that Hora believes Nina Reiser would not voluntarily disappear without her money while keeping her bills up to date.
Earlier testimony showed nearly $2,000 in cash was found in her Oakland apartment, and her inside her van the authorities found a $2,100 check made out to her landlord that she never delivered. Now, guys, tell me: If you're planning on disappearing to Russia, do you make out a check for your landlord and stuff it in your van, never to be delievered? Because that's basically Hans' defense at this point -- that she volunatarily left for Russia. Now, it's still possible that she involuntarily left for Russia, but the defense, thus far, hasn't presented any evidence at all that this happened, either.
So, if the screen goes black on users who have a genuine copy, maybe they can use this hack? Or would this be illegal? Although it would then be like tricking Windows into -realizing- it is genuine... No, I think in order to be convicted of piracy, you would need a ship, some weapons and have committed acts such as thievery at high seas, raping, pillaging, you know that sort of thing.
Copyright infringement, OTOH, is something else entirely.
So, if the screen goes black on users who have a genuine copy, maybe they can use this hack? Or would this be illegal? Although it would then be like tricking Windows into -realizing- it is genuine... It would be a pretty clear violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and similar laws in countries outside the United States -- bypassing a security system designed to prevent copying. Might be okay in Canada, though. I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and you if you want legal advice -- go hire a lawyer.
Re:You need to clarify your question
on
Ethics In IT
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If I as an individual, go out and set fire to somebody's car, I'm likely to spend a good deal of time in jail. I would possibly lose years off of my life and get a criminal record that would hurt the ability to provide for myself in the future. Knowing that trade off would deter me.
If a big businesses made a car that burst into flames then their likely punishment will all be in dollars and cents. Bad analogy. Your first example is a matter of criminal law and your second example is a matter of civil law (product liability). Here's a better example:
The mechanic down the street fixes your car and due to a short cut he takes (say, not replacing a gasket or a seal that should have been replaced), your car bursts into flames, what happens? Well, first the mechanic is subject to civil liability law, where his repair work was the direct cause of the flamage. Secondly, the mechanic may be subject to to criminal law, since the injuries you sustained may be proven to be an act of gross negligence or possibly reckless endangerment.
The CEO that makes the decision to make a car that has a risk of bursting into flame carries almost no personal liability whatsoever. He's protected by the corporate veil. Now, even the mechanic down the street might be protected by a corporate veil (anyone can incorporate), except that to be a mechanic in most states you must be personally licensed and insured, so you assume some personal liability risk for sure.
But in reality, the big difference is that the corporate CEO has enough money to buy the best lawyers to ensure that the corporate veil isn't pierced, while the mechanic down the street probably does not.
So in the end, it's all about the Golden Rule: Those with the gold get to make the rules.
I think there needs to be a better punishment system for big business. Perhaps prosecution of CEO's, or forced closing (short term or permanent), maybe a fine to the shareholders.... I don't know. In the end, the market does decide. A company that becomes known for repeatedly making bad products will eventually find that they will lose customers. What's happened to Mattel's stock price since they announced the lead paint recall last August? Down, down, down. Maybe if Mattel gets their act together, things will improve for the company. But if they continue to have product liability issues, I guarantee you their stock price will probably never recover.
After all, in Unix, terminals and other IO devices are a part of the core OS Um, no. They actually aren't. I know you're not gonna believe this kid, but a long, long time ago in a computer lab far, far away, terminals weren't pieces of software but were actually pieces of hardware, manufactured by companies like DEC, ADDS, etc.
Where the confusion comes in is that, at one time, 'operating system' referred to what we generally think of as a 'kernel' today, and 'operating environment' is what we applied to desktop GUIs. Then, one day, some stupid company named 'Microsoft' comes around and releases a product called 'Windows', making ludicrous claims that the 'operating system' and the 'GUI' were the same thing!
Unfortunately, this misnaming kinda stuck and Apple renamed its 'system' software to 'MacOS' and IBM and Microsoft released something that, together, they called 'OS/2'.
So now people think of 'Linux' as being an 'operating system' including things like what would come with 'Ubuntu': Gnome, X11, etc. Thing is Linux is the 'operating system' in the sense that it is a kernel. 'K/X/Ubuntu' is a complete package, containing an 'operating system', some 'system software' (GNU stuff, etc.) and an 'operating environment' consisting of one of [ Gnome | KDE | XFCE ].
This is what 'Windows' is, but Microsoft calls it an 'operating system'.
Correct. If you want to talk about design and usability, go talk to the GNOME people, the KDE people and the FreeDesktop.org people. That's their department. Linus is just in charge of the kernel, a tiny subset of a complete operating system distribution that end users never see and never directly interact with.
You could have an OS that's compatible with every piece of hardware and software in existence, but Joe User will not want it if it takes an 8 year degree in computer science to figure out how to change directories. And, yet, you haven't managed to describe Linux. So your point is?
I believe they are pod-people, clones of Donny Most, aka Ralph Malph. They have a strange genetic mutation that only allows them to comprehend Web browsers and nothing else.
"Writers, Writers, Writers!" "I'm gonna fscking KILL the WGA!" *throws chair* "The Creative Commons licenses are a virus that's destroying the movie industry!"
Why assume it's malicious, when this sort of issue is well known to anyone who's ever tried to support multiple browsers through UA sniffing? Oh, there you go again, trying to ruin our Microsoft-bashing funfest with stupid things like "logic" and "reason". Sheesh. You must be new here.
On the other hand, it has it's uses. There's not much reason why I should have to press my PIN into a publicly visible terminal when I use an ATM. Thieves could just setup a digital camera at a commonly-used ATM, and then capture all the pictures. Eventually they'd figure out which ones belonged to which users.
Are you saying that Linux Desktop is equivalent to Duke Nukem Forever, or that The Linux Desktop is Duke Nukem Forever Yes. That's why he posted anonymously. He doesn't want anyone to know how much of a moron he really is.
And within a month, someone will figure out a way to crack it. It's inevitable. Obvious. It's vulnerable to some of the same techniques that passwords are vulnerable -- sniffing (assuming no encryption was also used), man-in-the-middle, keyboard (mouse) sniffer, malicious code, etc.
Correct. Electronics were required to be removed from carry-ons prior to 9/11 and the TSA. My wife worked as an airport security screener at one point (it paid well.) After that, you were required to demonstrate that they weren't bombs in the simplest manner possible -- you had to turn them on. Not a guarantee, but they also ran a bomb-sniffing wand over it, too.
If you need decent file copy time you can always just use Cygwin. So I'm going to pay $400 for Windows Vista Ultimate, only to have to resort to a Free/Open Source software download compiled from the same source code that I can get for freeby either downloading Ubuntu or ordering a free (as in beer) CD or DVD??
No thanks, I'll just skip the paying $400 for Vista Ultimate part.
You: *Click on perfectly legal MP3 file to download* Talking CD: "Hi! I'm the Microsoft Digital Rights Manager! It looks like you were trying to download an MP3 file! Please wait three days while I send your potential download through RIAA@Home to verify that this material is not copyrighted!"
No doubt. These guys are seriously stupid. This just has to be the most hair-brained scheme I've ever fsking heard in my life.
In order to pull this off, you've gotta take the raw data and compare it against a massive database of everything copyrighted in the world.
Who's got the computing power to run this thing? Lawrence Livermore? Sandia? Yeah, I think they've got a few more important things to spin their supercomputers on than protecting RIAA copyrights.
How much CPU power is this gonna take locally? What about network impact?
Gimme a fscking break.
Oh yeah, we'll put the filterware into routers and modems! Aside from it not working upon encrypted stuff, most routers and modems have what kinda of processing power? And what kind of storage capacity?
Hey, RIAA: Before you go spouting your stupid fscking mouths off, why don't you try hiring a few IT experts and maybe run it passed them first. Then, maybe, just maybe, you won't sound like a bunch of ignorant fscktards.
Christians, Catholics, Jews, Buddists, Flying Spaghetti Monster worshipers....(although none of the mentioned will try to blow you up or cut your head off if you do so). Really? Areyouentirelycertain about that?
For the U.S. military, protecting secrets of national security, only air gap security is considered secure. People who work on such systems are usually searched -- and, in many cases, strip-searched, as they enter the facility, not allowed to bring in so much as a notebook or pencil, let alone a cell phone. (If you need a notebook and pencil, you get one from the security guard. You get a new, blank notebook. When you leave, the notebook and pencil are confiscated.)
If you're protecting some financial and personal data on your home PC, maybe you only need a good off-the-shelf firewall, some antivirus/antispyware/antimalware software and some good common sense.
Slashdot Mirror
And we can deduce that:
But what I do know? My entire legal expertise hangs solely on what I read in layman's periodicals and books, what I read on the Internet, and, of course, watching shows like "Law & Order".
Here's what's bad in my mind: Morasch testified that [Nina Reiser] had recently paid her utility bills and even paid $150 to register her car with the California Department of Motor Vehicles. The testimony was gleaned by Hora in a bid to convince jurors that Hora believes Nina Reiser would not voluntarily disappear without her money while keeping her bills up to date.
Earlier testimony showed nearly $2,000 in cash was found in her Oakland apartment, and her inside her van the authorities found a $2,100 check made out to her landlord that she never delivered. Now, guys, tell me: If you're planning on disappearing to Russia, do you make out a check for your landlord and stuff it in your van, never to be delievered? Because that's basically Hans' defense at this point -- that she volunatarily left for Russia. Now, it's still possible that she involuntarily left for Russia, but the defense, thus far, hasn't presented any evidence at all that this happened, either.
Copyright infringement, OTOH, is something else entirely.
If a big businesses made a car that burst into flames then their likely punishment will all be in dollars and cents. Bad analogy. Your first example is a matter of criminal law and your second example is a matter of civil law (product liability). Here's a better example:
The mechanic down the street fixes your car and due to a short cut he takes (say, not replacing a gasket or a seal that should have been replaced), your car bursts into flames, what happens? Well, first the mechanic is subject to civil liability law, where his repair work was the direct cause of the flamage. Secondly, the mechanic may be subject to to criminal law, since the injuries you sustained may be proven to be an act of gross negligence or possibly reckless endangerment.
The CEO that makes the decision to make a car that has a risk of bursting into flame carries almost no personal liability whatsoever. He's protected by the corporate veil. Now, even the mechanic down the street might be protected by a corporate veil (anyone can incorporate), except that to be a mechanic in most states you must be personally licensed and insured, so you assume some personal liability risk for sure.
But in reality, the big difference is that the corporate CEO has enough money to buy the best lawyers to ensure that the corporate veil isn't pierced, while the mechanic down the street probably does not.
So in the end, it's all about the Golden Rule: Those with the gold get to make the rules. I think there needs to be a better punishment system for big business. Perhaps prosecution of CEO's, or forced closing (short term or permanent), maybe a fine to the shareholders.... I don't know. In the end, the market does decide. A company that becomes known for repeatedly making bad products will eventually find that they will lose customers. What's happened to Mattel's stock price since they announced the lead paint recall last August? Down, down, down. Maybe if Mattel gets their act together, things will improve for the company. But if they continue to have product liability issues, I guarantee you their stock price will probably never recover.
Shocking, isn't it?
[*] $11.95 does not include our $200/day charge for being 'Slashdotted'.
Where the confusion comes in is that, at one time, 'operating system' referred to what we generally think of as a 'kernel' today, and 'operating environment' is what we applied to desktop GUIs. Then, one day, some stupid company named 'Microsoft' comes around and releases a product called 'Windows', making ludicrous claims that the 'operating system' and the 'GUI' were the same thing!
Unfortunately, this misnaming kinda stuck and Apple renamed its 'system' software to 'MacOS' and IBM and Microsoft released something that, together, they called 'OS/2'.
So now people think of 'Linux' as being an 'operating system' including things like what would come with 'Ubuntu': Gnome, X11, etc. Thing is Linux is the 'operating system' in the sense that it is a kernel. 'K/X/Ubuntu' is a complete package, containing an 'operating system', some 'system software' (GNU stuff, etc.) and an 'operating environment' consisting of one of [ Gnome | KDE | XFCE ].
This is what 'Windows' is, but Microsoft calls it an 'operating system'.
Correct. If you want to talk about design and usability, go talk to the GNOME people, the KDE people and the FreeDesktop.org people. That's their department. Linus is just in charge of the kernel, a tiny subset of a complete operating system distribution that end users never see and never directly interact with.
I believe they are pod-people, clones of Donny Most, aka Ralph Malph. They have a strange genetic mutation that only allows them to comprehend Web browsers and nothing else.
Some choice Eisner quotes:
"Writers, Writers, Writers!"
"I'm gonna fscking KILL the WGA!" *throws chair*
"The Creative Commons licenses are a virus that's destroying the movie industry!"
and, finally:
"Linux violates 439 Disney patents!"
I know it's hard to believe with gas at $3.50/gal, but the truth is that gasoline was just cheaper than diesel or even biodiesel fuel.
Correct. Electronics were required to be removed from carry-ons prior to 9/11 and the TSA. My wife worked as an airport security screener at one point (it paid well.) After that, you were required to demonstrate that they weren't bombs in the simplest manner possible -- you had to turn them on. Not a guarantee, but they also ran a bomb-sniffing wand over it, too.
No thanks, I'll just skip the paying $400 for Vista Ultimate part.
You: *Click on perfectly legal MP3 file to download*
Talking CD: "Hi! I'm the Microsoft Digital Rights Manager! It looks like you were trying to download an MP3 file! Please wait three days while I send your potential download through RIAA@Home to verify that this material is not copyrighted!"
No doubt. These guys are seriously stupid. This just has to be the most hair-brained scheme I've ever fsking heard in my life.
In order to pull this off, you've gotta take the raw data and compare it against a massive database of everything copyrighted in the world.
Who's got the computing power to run this thing? Lawrence Livermore? Sandia? Yeah, I think they've got a few more important things to spin their supercomputers on than protecting RIAA copyrights.
How much CPU power is this gonna take locally? What about network impact?
Gimme a fscking break.
Oh yeah, we'll put the filterware into routers and modems! Aside from it not working upon encrypted stuff, most routers and modems have what kinda of processing power? And what kind of storage capacity?
Hey, RIAA: Before you go spouting your stupid fscking mouths off, why don't you try hiring a few IT experts and maybe run it passed them first. Then, maybe, just maybe, you won't sound like a bunch of ignorant fscktards.
That depends on what you're protecting.
For the U.S. military, protecting secrets of national security, only air gap security is considered secure. People who work on such systems are usually searched -- and, in many cases, strip-searched, as they enter the facility, not allowed to bring in so much as a notebook or pencil, let alone a cell phone. (If you need a notebook and pencil, you get one from the security guard. You get a new, blank notebook. When you leave, the notebook and pencil are confiscated.)
If you're protecting some financial and personal data on your home PC, maybe you only need a good off-the-shelf firewall, some antivirus/antispyware/antimalware software and some good common sense.
Look, if you have to compare McDonald's to eating out of garbage can to make it seem like a great place to eat, the food must not be very good, huh?
Same with the U.S. -- if you have to compare our (remaining) freedoms with those in Afghanistan or North Korea -- well, what would you call that?