Um, "major" and "religion" are two concepts that are impossible for disjoint sets of humans to correlate. Everybody is going to say that their religion is a "major" one - yes, that includes you atheists too - which means that you can't make assertions about the set of major religions, since nobody will agree on the set's constitution.
Really ? What's stopping Joe Troll from picking a name from the sex offender registry at random and reporting any email address he wishes ?
The fact that he doesn't have that random offender's photo ID and/or doesn't look like him.
Actually verifying his identity would cost money
How much money does it REALLY cost for a cop to ask to see your ID?
in fact I suspect that the registration is simply a matter of sending email from that address to a government one
If you're right, then that would be a horrible implementation of this law. But that's not an argument against the law per se. If a perp were required to identify himself in person and declare in writing under penalty of perjury what his e-mail address was, then I think that would basically eliminate the troll potential.
Sure, but in this case, I'm not sure how many convicted sex offenders would want to commit felony perjury in the presence of a police officer just to be a troll.
How will you know this? Will you check the database for your e-mails regularly?
Well, if my myspace page suddenly goes dark, I suspect I might wonder why it would have happened.
Are you 100% sure that your boss won't find a legitimate way to fire you if he sees the address on this list first?
If my boss doesn't work for a consumer of this list, why would he see it? This isn't a public list. If my boss wanted to know if I was a convicted sex offender, there would much, much easier ways for him to find this out (just for the record, no, I am not a sex offender, convicted or otherwise). Any simple background check would reveal felony convictions right at the top.
I personally oppose the idea of such list.
I do too. But if you're going to oppose it, you need to have a good reason. You haven't articulated one yet. Others in this thread have. They get a cookie. None for you yet.
Any address can get in and it will be very hard to get out.
I don't see how that assertion is reasonable.
It doesn't play well with the law a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Which is irrelevant in the case where the person was proven guilty.
Create enough false positives, and there could be enough public outcry to get the law repealed, or at least neutered.
If this law is implemented properly (yes, I know. Let's just say it is for the sake of argument), then our troll would have to appear before a police officer (or equivalent), identify themselves properly, and declare under penalty of perjury that the e-mail address they are registering is theirs.
Still think sufficient numbers of convicted sex offenders would be willing to commit a felony in a context where they'd be pretty easy to identify just as an act of civil disobedience?
Of course, if this isn't the procedure they set up, then of course it will be abused. And shame on them, if so. But that's not an argument against the law per se.
Presuming that this is set up reasonably properly (I know it's a stretch, but understand I'm not in favor of the law in the first place), one would have to appear before a police officer (or equivalent), identify themselves properly, and assert under penalty of perjury that the e-mail addresses they're registering are their own.
Still think someone's going to go through that just to be a troll?
The point is, It's one thing to be a dick when the potential liability and/or likelihood of detection is small. It's quite another for a convicted felon to commit a felony (in this case, perjury) with his name and address printed right on the form and his signature on the dotted line, and then hand the form to a police officer.
My name would not appear in the list, since I'm not a convicted sex offender. I presume you mean that if my e-mail address showed up as registered to a convicted sex offender. If that happens, then I'll know who did it (since the registration will have his name), and can press charges against that person for falsely registering.
Note, by the way, that I'm not in favor of this law. I'm merely saying that the arguments against it that were given in the story were dumb.
"someone" would have to be someone subject to the law - a convicted sexual predator. "registration" implies tying an e-mail address to a specific individual. If that address got registered, it'd be easy to find out to whom it was registered. From there, it's one or two steps to either finding whoever fraudulently registered the address or fixing it.
They are asking known criminals to be honest, and are expecting them not to utilize any of the free and readily available e-mail services that exist so as to circumvent the system.
Gun laws do not prevent felons from using guns to commit crimes. They do, however, mean that felons who use guns to commit further crimes get to stay in prison for much longer because of having violated those gun laws in addition to whatever crime they committed with the gun. That's what this law is about. It won't keep some perv from using mailnator to set up a myspace page, but if they get caught trolling myspace with it, the fact that they didn't register their e-mail address means that they get a longer prison sentence. That's the whole point.
There is also a potential for the crafty sex offender to possibly cause false positives by just registering an address that does not belong to them, thereby drawing in innocent bystanders.
1. Cui bono? Why would they bother to do this, except just to be a dick?
2. I rather suspect that the penalty for supplying false information will be comparably stiff to not supplying it at all, which would seem to be sufficient deterrent.
it's the size and complexity of the non-default routing table. The principle reason to switch to IPv6 is that it gives us the opportunity to throw away the old legacy routing table and insist on sticking with hierarchical address allocation to keep the routing table small.
Of course, easy is in the eye of the beholder, but any design that even makes the process easier than it currently is would impose enough of a burden on the internal design that it would change the shape of the phone substantially.
and have the data wiped [...] and have to re sync everything
You're so cute. You do realize that that happens automatically, right? You plug in your refurbished device and while the new battery is charging, it gets everything put back just the way you had it before.
Except that most phone batteries I've seen (at least those sold by the original manufacturer as replacement parts or upgrades) are significantly more expensive than $20.
And the big issue is that if you want the battery to be user replaceable, you have to design the case to be easily openable by the end user. This puts constraints on the design of both the case and resulting battery that would likely make the current designs impossible to replicate. And it's those designs that are a substantial fraction of the devices' desirability in the marketplace. An iPhone that had a user replaceable battery would be an iPhone that sucks a little more than the current one, and IMHO it would not be a net benefit.
Oh, I agree with you. I'm not suggesting she was illegally using personal e-mail accounts for government business, just pointing out that that's what the GP meant to say.
Somehow, this technique reminds me of the (obviously rather simplistic) description of the functionality of the Tron program from the movie of the same name. From the script:
DILLINGER
[...]
What's the thing you're working on?
ALAN
It's called Tron. It's a security
program itself, actually. Monitors
all the contacts between our system
and other systems... If it finds
anything going on that's not scheduled,
it shuts it down. I sent you a memo
on it.
DILLINGER
Mmm. Part of the Master Control Program?
ALAN
No, it'll run independently.
It can watchdog the MCP as well.
Slashdot Mirror
However, there's only one major religion today
Um, "major" and "religion" are two concepts that are impossible for disjoint sets of humans to correlate. Everybody is going to say that their religion is a "major" one - yes, that includes you atheists too - which means that you can't make assertions about the set of major religions, since nobody will agree on the set's constitution.
No, but three rights make a left.
Really ? What's stopping Joe Troll from picking a name from the sex offender registry at random and reporting any email address he wishes ?
The fact that he doesn't have that random offender's photo ID and/or doesn't look like him.
Actually verifying his identity would cost money
How much money does it REALLY cost for a cop to ask to see your ID?
in fact I suspect that the registration is simply a matter of sending email from that address to a government one
If you're right, then that would be a horrible implementation of this law. But that's not an argument against the law per se. If a perp were required to identify himself in person and declare in writing under penalty of perjury what his e-mail address was, then I think that would basically eliminate the troll potential.
Sure, but in this case, I'm not sure how many convicted sex offenders would want to commit felony perjury in the presence of a police officer just to be a troll.
How will you know this? Will you check the database for your e-mails regularly?
Well, if my myspace page suddenly goes dark, I suspect I might wonder why it would have happened.
Are you 100% sure that your boss won't find a legitimate way to fire you if he sees the address on this list first?
If my boss doesn't work for a consumer of this list, why would he see it? This isn't a public list. If my boss wanted to know if I was a convicted sex offender, there would much, much easier ways for him to find this out (just for the record, no, I am not a sex offender, convicted or otherwise). Any simple background check would reveal felony convictions right at the top.
I personally oppose the idea of such list.
I do too. But if you're going to oppose it, you need to have a good reason. You haven't articulated one yet. Others in this thread have. They get a cookie. None for you yet.
Any address can get in and it will be very hard to get out.
I don't see how that assertion is reasonable.
It doesn't play well with the law a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Which is irrelevant in the case where the person was proven guilty.
Create enough false positives, and there could be enough public outcry to get the law repealed, or at least neutered.
If this law is implemented properly (yes, I know. Let's just say it is for the sake of argument), then our troll would have to appear before a police officer (or equivalent), identify themselves properly, and declare under penalty of perjury that the e-mail address they are registering is theirs.
Still think sufficient numbers of convicted sex offenders would be willing to commit a felony in a context where they'd be pretty easy to identify just as an act of civil disobedience?
Of course, if this isn't the procedure they set up, then of course it will be abused. And shame on them, if so. But that's not an argument against the law per se.
Those are all excellent reasons to be against the law as written.
Note that I never said I was in favor of the law. I only said that the arguments against it that were given in the story were dumb.
Presuming that this is set up reasonably properly (I know it's a stretch, but understand I'm not in favor of the law in the first place), one would have to appear before a police officer (or equivalent), identify themselves properly, and assert under penalty of perjury that the e-mail addresses they're registering are their own.
Still think someone's going to go through that just to be a troll?
Ha ha.
The point is, It's one thing to be a dick when the potential liability and/or likelihood of detection is small. It's quite another for a convicted felon to commit a felony (in this case, perjury) with his name and address printed right on the form and his signature on the dotted line, and then hand the form to a police officer.
My name would not appear in the list, since I'm not a convicted sex offender. I presume you mean that if my e-mail address showed up as registered to a convicted sex offender. If that happens, then I'll know who did it (since the registration will have his name), and can press charges against that person for falsely registering.
Note, by the way, that I'm not in favor of this law. I'm merely saying that the arguments against it that were given in the story were dumb.
I didn't say it was a good thing. I said that the arguments against it in the story were dumb.
In this case, you'd have a victim who'd be able to pretty easily identify the perp, so yeah, it WOULD work pretty well.
"someone" would have to be someone subject to the law - a convicted sexual predator. "registration" implies tying an e-mail address to a specific individual. If that address got registered, it'd be easy to find out to whom it was registered. From there, it's one or two steps to either finding whoever fraudulently registered the address or fixing it.
They are asking known criminals to be honest, and are expecting them not to utilize any of the free and readily available e-mail services that exist so as to circumvent the system.
Gun laws do not prevent felons from using guns to commit crimes. They do, however, mean that felons who use guns to commit further crimes get to stay in prison for much longer because of having violated those gun laws in addition to whatever crime they committed with the gun. That's what this law is about. It won't keep some perv from using mailnator to set up a myspace page, but if they get caught trolling myspace with it, the fact that they didn't register their e-mail address means that they get a longer prison sentence. That's the whole point.
There is also a potential for the crafty sex offender to possibly cause false positives by just registering an address that does not belong to them, thereby drawing in innocent bystanders.
1. Cui bono? Why would they bother to do this, except just to be a dick?
2. I rather suspect that the penalty for supplying false information will be comparably stiff to not supplying it at all, which would seem to be sufficient deterrent.
it's the size and complexity of the non-default routing table. The principle reason to switch to IPv6 is that it gives us the opportunity to throw away the old legacy routing table and insist on sticking with hierarchical address allocation to keep the routing table small.
Of course, easy is in the eye of the beholder, but any design that even makes the process easier than it currently is would impose enough of a burden on the internal design that it would change the shape of the phone substantially.
Ha ha, but my Grandfather had to have his pacemaker replaced because it got to the end of its useful life before he did.
and have the data wiped [...] and have to re sync everything
You're so cute. You do realize that that happens automatically, right? You plug in your refurbished device and while the new battery is charging, it gets everything put back just the way you had it before.
Except that most phone batteries I've seen (at least those sold by the original manufacturer as replacement parts or upgrades) are significantly more expensive than $20.
And the big issue is that if you want the battery to be user replaceable, you have to design the case to be easily openable by the end user. This puts constraints on the design of both the case and resulting battery that would likely make the current designs impossible to replicate. And it's those designs that are a substantial fraction of the devices' desirability in the marketplace. An iPhone that had a user replaceable battery would be an iPhone that sucks a little more than the current one, and IMHO it would not be a net benefit.
Oh, I agree with you. I'm not suggesting she was illegally using personal e-mail accounts for government business, just pointing out that that's what the GP meant to say.
I learned that Sarah Palin was illegally using personal email accounts for business email
Um, that's perfectly legal.
What you meant to say was that she was illegally using personal email accounts for government business, which is not.
Did the editors get tired of "pleasestop"? Way to kill the messenger.
Simple. Spamming pays better than academia.
for a PDF version you'll have to give up an email address.
Fortunately, those aren't hard to come by.
Somehow, this technique reminds me of the (obviously rather simplistic) description of the functionality of the Tron program from the movie of the same name. From the script:
DILLINGER
[...]
What's the thing you're working on?
ALAN
It's called Tron. It's a security
program itself, actually. Monitors
all the contacts between our system
and other systems... If it finds
anything going on that's not scheduled,
it shuts it down. I sent you a memo
on it.
DILLINGER
Mmm. Part of the Master Control Program?
ALAN
No, it'll run independently.
It can watchdog the MCP as well.