Well it's pretty much a joke that you should have to do those things in the first place. It's one thing if you start executing randomly downloaded files while logged in as Admin, but an OS shouldn't be so vulnerable simply because it's connected to a network.
It's even worse that MS has brainwashed people to think this is perfectly normal, and blame the users.
It IS complete bullshit but not doubt that's what the **AAs want you to believe.
And to all these people arguing for them: the next time you go rent a movie with your wife/girlfriend, remember to rent two copies otherwise you're breaking the law !
First of all if you are standing OUTSIDE the property of the drive-in movie theater, looking in, that is and should be perfectly legal. It is their lightsources that exit their property, you are just capturing them with your eyeballs once it's in the public domain. (As opposed to your eyeballs traveling through the air onto their screen).
And yes if they want to build a better fence, as long as it is on their property that is perfectly fine. But I don't need them telling me I need to poke out my eyeballs/wear extra dark sunglasses/or stay off the public streets so I don't accidentally catch a glimpse of their precious movie.
Well said. Same goes for cable/satellite TV, what the F$&#* ?! Definitely feels like we're paying twice.
And they already figured out how to make extra $ from all that "product placement" crap IN the show/movie (e.g. all the actors are drinking Pepsi (C) or saving the world with their Apple (R) laptops...)
Yes, but - as someone already mentioned - how much of this was "Software worth X million", i.e. 50,000 copies of Office XP with a sticker price of $999 each...
But in this case the sender's actual name is NOT John Smith (or Fitch), and he didn't just accidantelly happen to use that name, and furthermore the material he sent was regarding one John Smith, so people would have good reason to believe that the sender was indeed that SAME John Smith the material was referring to.
And if someone just happened to have the exact same name as the person they are writing about, chances are they would start off by clarifying: "that's another John Smith, not me".
The person owning that particular email account may indeed be dead - or moved out of the country and no longer using the account - but that still does not positively identify the person on the death certificate as the same as the owner of the account.
The point is, his yahoo email account contains emails that were sent TO him (yes I realize you can enable it to keep a copy of your sent mail as well).
If his parents sent him emails, that will be nothing new to themselves (the parents).
If he sent his parents emails, they already have those too.
Other (private) emails he received from other people are none of their business. Period.
How did we get from the original article's
" temporarily distracting the pilots"
to your
"blinding the pilots and causing the plane to crash" ??
Distracting is a very generic term. Anything and everything can be "distracting". This article is distracting from other stuff I would be doing. Even if they just say a little green light out there and paid attention to it for a second they can say they were temporarily distracted by it.
In order to be reasonably sure that minor crimes won't turn into major high-speed chases or hostage standoffs, you need to make sure that minor criminals have an incentive not to cause them. ]
Agreed, but I get the feeling that some of our law enforcement actually enjoys turning relatively minor crimes into major once, so that in addition to charging the suspect with the original minor crime they can also charge with speeding, wreckless driving, resisting arrest, 27 counts of property damage, etc...
BTW it is also quite ridiculous how they frequently charge with 8 different things for a single crime, and they can all potentially stick and the penalties add up. They should only be able to charge with the most serious one the crime qualifies for.
Well maybe they should think about that and at least fix the potential laser problem on the airplane end so this cannot happen.
Putting this guy away will not forever secure all airplanes, and it seems kind of a joke that almost anyone form anywhere can bring down a $50,000,000 plane with a $100 astronomy tool.
And just how wide was this laser that it blinded ALL of the pilots ? Was it like the bat-sign over Gotham city ?
That seems wrong, especially when you consider that they are trying to convict this guy using anti-terrirism laws while admittedly knowing he is not a terrorist ! That seems a lot worse than simply lying, but of course they won't be charged with anything.
Hmm you see no difference between aiming a rocket launcher at an aircraft vs. aiming a laser ?
Besides, is this how fragile airplanes are now, that a laser pointer can bring them down ?? And to think all this time terrorists have been wasting their money on aquiring explosives.
If it wasn't not under oath how can they charge him with anything ? Isn't the whole point of "freedom of speech" is that you can say whatever you want ? Besides, politicians - the very same ones who came up with the Patriot Act - lie constantly.
Slashdot Mirror
Well it's pretty much a joke that you should have to do those things in the first place. It's one thing if you start executing randomly downloaded files while logged in as Admin, but an OS shouldn't be so vulnerable simply because it's connected to a network. It's even worse that MS has brainwashed people to think this is perfectly normal, and blame the users.
It IS complete bullshit but not doubt that's what the **AAs want you to believe.
And to all these people arguing for them: the next time you go rent a movie with your wife/girlfriend, remember to rent two copies otherwise you're breaking the law !
First of all if you are standing OUTSIDE the property of the drive-in movie theater, looking in, that is and should be perfectly legal. It is their lightsources that exit their property, you are just capturing them with your eyeballs once it's in the public domain. (As opposed to your eyeballs traveling through the air onto their screen).
And yes if they want to build a better fence, as long as it is on their property that is perfectly fine. But I don't need them telling me I need to poke out my eyeballs/wear extra dark sunglasses/or stay off the public streets so I don't accidentally catch a glimpse of their precious movie.
Well said. Same goes for cable/satellite TV, what the F$&#* ?! Definitely feels like we're paying twice.
And they already figured out how to make extra $ from all that "product placement" crap IN the show/movie (e.g. all the actors are drinking Pepsi (C) or saving the world with their Apple (R) laptops...)
Yes, but - as someone already mentioned - how much of this was "Software worth X million", i.e. 50,000 copies of Office XP with a sticker price of $999 each...
Most of us are using the money saved to support our local merchants.
But in this case the sender's actual name is NOT John Smith (or Fitch), and he didn't just accidantelly happen to use that name, and furthermore the material he sent was regarding one John Smith, so people would have good reason to believe that the sender was indeed that SAME John Smith the material was referring to.
And if someone just happened to have the exact same name as the person they are writing about, chances are they would start off by clarifying: "that's another John Smith, not me".
The person owning that particular email account may indeed be dead - or moved out of the country and no longer using the account - but that still does not positively identify the person on the death certificate as the same as the owner of the account.
Using that logic necrophilia should be perfectly legal too.
I have yet to hear a good reason WHY the parents need to access his email account. Is there one ?
Emails THEY sent/received to/from him they would already have.
Emails OTHERS sent/received to/from him are none of the parents' business. Any of these he wanted them to see, he would've forwarded to them. The end.
The point is, his yahoo email account contains emails that were sent TO him (yes I realize you can enable it to keep a copy of your sent mail as well).
If his parents sent him emails, that will be nothing new to themselves (the parents).
If he sent his parents emails, they already have those too.
Other (private) emails he received from other people are none of their business. Period.
2000 too.
Actually, Windoz 200 and XP have stolen several UI ideas from earlier versions of KDE...
Hmm how about the gov't charging everybody they want to punish with the "Patriot Act" when by their own admission it doesn't even apply here ?
Well whoopidy doo, how wonderfully kind of them not to charge him for distracting the helicopter that was flying around in his own yard.
How did we get from the original article's
" temporarily distracting the pilots"
to your
"blinding the pilots and causing the plane to crash" ??
Distracting is a very generic term. Anything and everything can be "distracting". This article is distracting from other stuff I would be doing. Even if they just say a little green light out there and paid attention to it for a second they can say they were temporarily distracted by it.
Ha ha I bet you're actually not that far from the truth...
once --> ones
In order to be reasonably sure that minor crimes won't turn into major high-speed chases or hostage standoffs, you need to make sure that minor criminals have an incentive not to cause them. ]
Agreed, but I get the feeling that some of our law enforcement actually enjoys turning relatively minor crimes into major once, so that in addition to charging the suspect with the original minor crime they can also charge with speeding, wreckless driving, resisting arrest, 27 counts of property damage, etc... BTW it is also quite ridiculous how they frequently charge with 8 different things for a single crime, and they can all potentially stick and the penalties add up. They should only be able to charge with the most serious one the crime qualifies for.
Well maybe they should think about that and at least fix the potential laser problem on the airplane end so this cannot happen.
Putting this guy away will not forever secure all airplanes, and it seems kind of a joke that almost anyone form anywhere can bring down a $50,000,000 plane with a $100 astronomy tool.
And just how wide was this laser that it blinded ALL of the pilots ? Was it like the bat-sign over Gotham city ?
That seems wrong, especially when you consider that they are trying to convict this guy using anti-terrirism laws while admittedly knowing he is not a terrorist ! That seems a lot worse than simply lying, but of course they won't be charged with anything.
So using the same logic, pointing my finger should be illegal too, being as how I COULD have been pointing a real gun.
Hmm you see no difference between aiming a rocket launcher at an aircraft vs. aiming a laser ? Besides, is this how fragile airplanes are now, that a laser pointer can bring them down ?? And to think all this time terrorists have been wasting their money on aquiring explosives.
errr "was not" under oath.
If it wasn't not under oath how can they charge him with anything ? Isn't the whole point of "freedom of speech" is that you can say whatever you want ? Besides, politicians - the very same ones who came up with the Patriot Act - lie constantly.