No. They'll just reference the police report that say "individual stated name as blah-blah-blah, he indicated he had written identification (drivers) license on his person but refused to show it". While those statements can't be used as testimony against him they can be used to illustrate the events.
Hey wow, flamebait!
So in the absence of proof whether the stores actions violated his rights and on this guys version of the facts alone, and absent any verdict on whether the cop was within his right to request identification from a guy he suspected of shoplifting, you've decided that they are criminals and dirty scum. Way to go there! You must watch foxnews a lot too I guess? I'm basing my opinion of the guy on his own account which I doubt would be contradicted by the other participants.
If this guy was truly a patriot as your armchair hero worship would indicate, why doesn't tackle an issue a little more important than an electronics store pestering its patrons. If you don't like their method of deterring shoplifters - do the free American thing and vote with your money by not shopping there! Maybe, he could take his personal fortunes (he owns his own business at 19 apparently) and sue the gov for invasion of privacy. He's just as bad as that twit in Baltimore who insists on paying for everything with $2 bills and then gets indignant when he inevitably runs into a minimum wage cashier and a cop who believe them to be fake.
You also know very little about me, if you're judging me by a single post. Personally, I'd love to see what the police report and the outside camera say.
Exactly. China doesn't want war, but they want desperately to close the military and technology gap. Stealing the technology instead of developing it themselves is vastly cheaper, quicker and easier. The are not the only country friendly or not who engages in corporate and military espionage against the US. ANd don't think the US isn't spying on the other countries either.
"2) didn't remember to read him his Miranda rights."
Last time I checked, they are only required to read you your Miranda rights when they process you at the station. They can't necessarily hold anything you say before that against you though. A violation of Miranda rights is also not an automatic acquittal either.
"Fuck them. Don't show your receipt. Keep walking.
Wait for the cops if needed. Sue the hell out of them if you can."
Just do go the extra step and be a jerk to the cop that shows up. When the cop shows up, you be polite and explain that the store is attempting to violate your rights. Let the cop check you bag if he asks. BTW, google this guys name and you'll find he's a media whore and this isn't the only time he's done this type of stunt.
Too bad you have such a dickhead as your role model. He chose to act like an arrogant prick and cause the kids and father in the car lots of grief. Some birthday present, eh? Right or wrong, you just don't act that way.
He'll lose the case because he hinted that he had a drivers license and refused to show it. At that point, he was uncooperative and deliberately preventing the officer from doing his duty (ie determine the situation, the participants, and whether a crime was occurring). At that point, the cop and the store had every reason to believe he was shoplifting and every right to detain him. The cop probably should have just arrested him on suspicion of shoplifting rather than detain him and search his bags. Also, the store can tell him he is longer welcome to shop there and have him arrested on trespass charges should he return to the property.
You missed the point. Setting the broadcast bit should not break your DHCP server. It's a valid option and if the DHCP server refuses to issue a lease because of it, it's the fault of the DHCP server. Whether Vista is improperly using the flag is irrelevant since it's a valid flag.
MS is properly implementing a known, albeit outdated, DHCP option. The DHCP server is failing to respond rather than either implement/ignore the valid option. Incidentally, this issue is fixed in ISC http://www.isc.org/index.pl?/sw/dhcp/dhcp-v2.php, so it's also possible that ISP is ignoring an update that will fix the problem.
Also, MS has stated which registry key to change to disable the offending broadcast flag option http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928233, so it's not correct to say that MS has not responded. Given that they are RFC compliant, they didn't need to do anything.
Bar are being held liable if they serve you too much alcohol when it's obvious you plan to drive home. IN theory, even if you're not driving they are contributing to your public drunkenness. The idea is that they are negligent by contributing to the crime when they should know better. Now, you could also make the argument that AOL should monitor their customers to make sure they aren't attempting to perform crimes (hacking, etc) using their product. Is it negligence that they don't block access to known kiddy-porn sites?
From a global perspective, C02 levels are rising because we keep pumping carbon heavy oil, coal, and natural gas out of the ground and burning it. Making bogus CO2 claims about H2 fuel (which is typically generated by cracking natural gas and throwing away 25% of the energy) and using bogus terms like carbon foot print just confuse the issue. To truly fix the problem we need alternative fuel sources that aren't derived or dependent on oil, coal, and ng. Ethanol is still a folly from a cost/btu perspective, but at least all the carbon in ethanol is already on the surface an in the environment.
Actually, I doubt the original poster is in a managed corporate environment or that they have admin folks of any quality since they didn't notice. In a corporate (not a small office setup), real admins monitor the network and clients for changes like this. Hell, I know when someone installs software much less changes the OS. I keep a master list of installed software and I frequently verify that it's all up to date. In a larger security-conscious environment you absolutely must be aware of whats running on your network and what your vulnerabilities are. Rogue users installing Linux without even talking to the admin guys as a security risk, period.
Most Linux guys are woefully ignorant of how nice a well establish AD environment is. It's more that just domain services. It's the ability to assign privileges at a very granular level, set domain wide policies, domain wide scripts for anything unusual, etc. I manage both Linux and Windows networks (>400 each). The Windows side is far easier to manage than the Linux side. On the linux side, I'm constantly fighting stupid stuff like file permissions. amba sucks at letting users change file permissions and user-group-world isn't exactly granular enough.
Despite the Open Office lovers here, it's a piss-poor replacement for MS Office. It can't handle any of the VBA scripting that is ever so present in Excel. Most word documents look different between the two. Forget even trying to use MS Access or MS Project files.
> it also requires that the purpose of those transactions is to either directly or indirectly support violence in Iraq.
The Bush administration has been claiming that the terrorists are funded by drug sales and other grey/illegal sales. Does this mean if you buy anything from someone remotely connected to an Arabic nation, this EO can be applied to you? Technically, this means you can't buy oil from Iran as well.
Seriously, the ammonia from fish poop in the lake is several orders of magnitude higher. Plus, ammonia is taken up by algae anyway.
Re:Vista Install speed
on
Pimp Your XP
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There is a work around for using the Upgrade Version on a blank disk. http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5932
The purpose of the upgrade version is that it is installed from within an existing XP installation so that it can revoke the old XP license. MS has closed the loop hole of people buying the upgrade version, keeping an old XP disk around, and using it as a new license.
WRONG. Under the Executive Order, the govt is required to review documents after 30 years. The classification of the documents are either then automatically downgraded (could go from Secret to Confidential), they are destroyed, or they fall under one of many exceptions (for example we have ships older than 30-years). The intent of the Executive Order was not about giving the public access but rather to force the agencies to shrink their classified inventories.
The reality is that nothing truly important gets revealed to the public. Nothing classified is ever released via the Freedom of Information Act.
> In the US, we have this little thing call the Constitution
> that guarantees all people equal treatment under the law.
> The Government is required to enforce all the laws.
Are you referring to Amendment XV?
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Having the power to make laws and being required to enforce them are not the same thing. Plus the amendment forbids preferential treatment, which many minority rights and immigration job laws encourage.
It's possible. They may be talking about rehoming him to a different CO which would change his prefix. Our community is served by two different COs. One had DSLAM installed and the other did not.
If you sold me a car without seats, I could go after you under the law of merchantability (ie the item is suitable for the function implied - driving in the case). If TW Cable advertised the service as suitable for downloading vidoes, doing VOIP and then throttled it so that didn't work then you'd have grounds to sue them. In any case, the remedy is usually limited by the courts and state laws to a refund or cancellation of the contract.
No, if you read the actual memo, it talks about the definition of OSS (not free OSS) and plainly says that if it looks like COTS, treat it as COTS. The general direction of the Navy with it's DADMS database and even more restrictive ISF tools database that governs apps allowed on NMCI, is that regular commercial software is preferred. For example, commercial versions of Linux are approved for use within the Navy, but forget about custom distros.
Even if you're in a 1-party notification state, you can still be sued by someone calling from another state that has 2-party notification required.
Going the other way - according to the California court case Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. (July 13,2006) if you call from a one party consent state into California, then the Californian two party consent law outweighs the one party consent law. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S12 4739.PDF here].
I would avoid that card. It's limited to striping or mirroring, for starters. It's also not true hardware raid and depends on the drivers to do all the raid work. You really do get what you pay for here. You also get very little notice when one drive starts going bad. You just start getting random system hangs.
So they can still sue the crap out of Novell if they include Open Office or Evolution with their Linux? Afterall they ae clones of Office and Outlook. Hell, most of the good Linux software is a clone of a better commercial product.
This is pretty common. Also consider that the PLCs are usually custom programmed by the end-user and bad data is usually not tested by the programmers either. Heck, there are tons of commercial network devices that behave very badly when face with too much or incorrect data. Try running a full-blown security scan on your network and see what pukes. I have to go power cycle a bunch of Intel piece-of-crap print servers every time I do a port scan. Don't even get me started on the crappy snmp implementation on some major brand UPSs and HP JetDirect cards.
Slashdot Mirror
No. They'll just reference the police report that say "individual stated name as blah-blah-blah, he indicated he had written identification (drivers) license on his person but refused to show it". While those statements can't be used as testimony against him they can be used to illustrate the events.
Hey wow, flamebait! So in the absence of proof whether the stores actions violated his rights and on this guys version of the facts alone, and absent any verdict on whether the cop was within his right to request identification from a guy he suspected of shoplifting, you've decided that they are criminals and dirty scum. Way to go there! You must watch foxnews a lot too I guess? I'm basing my opinion of the guy on his own account which I doubt would be contradicted by the other participants. If this guy was truly a patriot as your armchair hero worship would indicate, why doesn't tackle an issue a little more important than an electronics store pestering its patrons. If you don't like their method of deterring shoplifters - do the free American thing and vote with your money by not shopping there! Maybe, he could take his personal fortunes (he owns his own business at 19 apparently) and sue the gov for invasion of privacy. He's just as bad as that twit in Baltimore who insists on paying for everything with $2 bills and then gets indignant when he inevitably runs into a minimum wage cashier and a cop who believe them to be fake. You also know very little about me, if you're judging me by a single post. Personally, I'd love to see what the police report and the outside camera say.
Exactly. China doesn't want war, but they want desperately to close the military and technology gap. Stealing the technology instead of developing it themselves is vastly cheaper, quicker and easier. The are not the only country friendly or not who engages in corporate and military espionage against the US. ANd don't think the US isn't spying on the other countries either.
"2) didn't remember to read him his Miranda rights." Last time I checked, they are only required to read you your Miranda rights when they process you at the station. They can't necessarily hold anything you say before that against you though. A violation of Miranda rights is also not an automatic acquittal either.
"Fuck them. Don't show your receipt. Keep walking. Wait for the cops if needed. Sue the hell out of them if you can." Just do go the extra step and be a jerk to the cop that shows up. When the cop shows up, you be polite and explain that the store is attempting to violate your rights. Let the cop check you bag if he asks. BTW, google this guys name and you'll find he's a media whore and this isn't the only time he's done this type of stunt.
Too bad you have such a dickhead as your role model. He chose to act like an arrogant prick and cause the kids and father in the car lots of grief. Some birthday present, eh? Right or wrong, you just don't act that way. He'll lose the case because he hinted that he had a drivers license and refused to show it. At that point, he was uncooperative and deliberately preventing the officer from doing his duty (ie determine the situation, the participants, and whether a crime was occurring). At that point, the cop and the store had every reason to believe he was shoplifting and every right to detain him. The cop probably should have just arrested him on suspicion of shoplifting rather than detain him and search his bags. Also, the store can tell him he is longer welcome to shop there and have him arrested on trespass charges should he return to the property.
You missed the point. Setting the broadcast bit should not break your DHCP server. It's a valid option and if the DHCP server refuses to issue a lease because of it, it's the fault of the DHCP server. Whether Vista is improperly using the flag is irrelevant since it's a valid flag.
MS is properly implementing a known, albeit outdated, DHCP option. The DHCP server is failing to respond rather than either implement/ignore the valid option. Incidentally, this issue is fixed in ISC http://www.isc.org/index.pl?/sw/dhcp/dhcp-v2.php, so it's also possible that ISP is ignoring an update that will fix the problem. Also, MS has stated which registry key to change to disable the offending broadcast flag option http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928233, so it's not correct to say that MS has not responded. Given that they are RFC compliant, they didn't need to do anything.
Bar are being held liable if they serve you too much alcohol when it's obvious you plan to drive home. IN theory, even if you're not driving they are contributing to your public drunkenness. The idea is that they are negligent by contributing to the crime when they should know better. Now, you could also make the argument that AOL should monitor their customers to make sure they aren't attempting to perform crimes (hacking, etc) using their product. Is it negligence that they don't block access to known kiddy-porn sites?
From a global perspective, C02 levels are rising because we keep pumping carbon heavy oil, coal, and natural gas out of the ground and burning it. Making bogus CO2 claims about H2 fuel (which is typically generated by cracking natural gas and throwing away 25% of the energy) and using bogus terms like carbon foot print just confuse the issue. To truly fix the problem we need alternative fuel sources that aren't derived or dependent on oil, coal, and ng. Ethanol is still a folly from a cost/btu perspective, but at least all the carbon in ethanol is already on the surface an in the environment.
Like this? http://www.dslwebserver.com/main/fr_index.html?/ma in/Romtec-Trios.html
Actually, I doubt the original poster is in a managed corporate environment or that they have admin folks of any quality since they didn't notice. In a corporate (not a small office setup), real admins monitor the network and clients for changes like this. Hell, I know when someone installs software much less changes the OS. I keep a master list of installed software and I frequently verify that it's all up to date. In a larger security-conscious environment you absolutely must be aware of whats running on your network and what your vulnerabilities are. Rogue users installing Linux without even talking to the admin guys as a security risk, period. Most Linux guys are woefully ignorant of how nice a well establish AD environment is. It's more that just domain services. It's the ability to assign privileges at a very granular level, set domain wide policies, domain wide scripts for anything unusual, etc. I manage both Linux and Windows networks (>400 each). The Windows side is far easier to manage than the Linux side. On the linux side, I'm constantly fighting stupid stuff like file permissions. amba sucks at letting users change file permissions and user-group-world isn't exactly granular enough. Despite the Open Office lovers here, it's a piss-poor replacement for MS Office. It can't handle any of the VBA scripting that is ever so present in Excel. Most word documents look different between the two. Forget even trying to use MS Access or MS Project files.
> it also requires that the purpose of those transactions is to either directly or indirectly support violence in Iraq. The Bush administration has been claiming that the terrorists are funded by drug sales and other grey/illegal sales. Does this mean if you buy anything from someone remotely connected to an Arabic nation, this EO can be applied to you? Technically, this means you can't buy oil from Iran as well.
Seriously, the ammonia from fish poop in the lake is several orders of magnitude higher. Plus, ammonia is taken up by algae anyway.
There is a work around for using the Upgrade Version on a blank disk. http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5932 The purpose of the upgrade version is that it is installed from within an existing XP installation so that it can revoke the old XP license. MS has closed the loop hole of people buying the upgrade version, keeping an old XP disk around, and using it as a new license.
WRONG. Under the Executive Order, the govt is required to review documents after 30 years. The classification of the documents are either then automatically downgraded (could go from Secret to Confidential), they are destroyed, or they fall under one of many exceptions (for example we have ships older than 30-years). The intent of the Executive Order was not about giving the public access but rather to force the agencies to shrink their classified inventories. The reality is that nothing truly important gets revealed to the public. Nothing classified is ever released via the Freedom of Information Act.
> In the US, we have this little thing call the Constitution > that guarantees all people equal treatment under the law. > The Government is required to enforce all the laws. Are you referring to Amendment XV? Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Having the power to make laws and being required to enforce them are not the same thing. Plus the amendment forbids preferential treatment, which many minority rights and immigration job laws encourage.
It's possible. They may be talking about rehoming him to a different CO which would change his prefix. Our community is served by two different COs. One had DSLAM installed and the other did not.
If you sold me a car without seats, I could go after you under the law of merchantability (ie the item is suitable for the function implied - driving in the case). If TW Cable advertised the service as suitable for downloading vidoes, doing VOIP and then throttled it so that didn't work then you'd have grounds to sue them. In any case, the remedy is usually limited by the courts and state laws to a refund or cancellation of the contract.
No, if you read the actual memo, it talks about the definition of OSS (not free OSS) and plainly says that if it looks like COTS, treat it as COTS. The general direction of the Navy with it's DADMS database and even more restrictive ISF tools database that governs apps allowed on NMCI, is that regular commercial software is preferred. For example, commercial versions of Linux are approved for use within the Navy, but forget about custom distros.
Even if you're in a 1-party notification state, you can still be sued by someone calling from another state that has 2-party notification required. Going the other way - according to the California court case Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. (July 13,2006) if you call from a one party consent state into California, then the Californian two party consent law outweighs the one party consent law. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S12 4739.PDF here].
I would avoid that card. It's limited to striping or mirroring, for starters. It's also not true hardware raid and depends on the drivers to do all the raid work. You really do get what you pay for here. You also get very little notice when one drive starts going bad. You just start getting random system hangs.
So they can still sue the crap out of Novell if they include Open Office or Evolution with their Linux? Afterall they ae clones of Office and Outlook. Hell, most of the good Linux software is a clone of a better commercial product.
This is pretty common. Also consider that the PLCs are usually custom programmed by the end-user and bad data is usually not tested by the programmers either. Heck, there are tons of commercial network devices that behave very badly when face with too much or incorrect data. Try running a full-blown security scan on your network and see what pukes. I have to go power cycle a bunch of Intel piece-of-crap print servers every time I do a port scan. Don't even get me started on the crappy snmp implementation on some major brand UPSs and HP JetDirect cards.
Why not just use the OTDR on the fiber or copper conductor?