I realize global warming is popular, but it's a bit early to declare it the #1 man-made disaster. First of all, the jury is still out on whether or not humans contribute in a significant way to global warming. #2 It hasn't caused any disasters yet. 10 more years of research and allowing the political skew to die down will give us a much clearer view of what is really happening.
I wonder if the US offshores it's cyberhacking to India... I was looking at jobs at Symantec the other day and noticed much of their programming force is outsourced to India. That seems a little unsafe.
I have no idea what the laws are in Sweden, but I suspect he is in trouble for posting the information to his website.
But this brings up a dilemma I've always had with hacking. Is it possible to do it legally? I've always thought it would be fun to do, but I'm also opposed to breaking any laws. I value the law over getting some satisfaction over hacking into someone else's computer. So the question is, is it possible to practice without breaking laws?
It seems to me that anyone who is just looking for a quick fix or convenient means to fix their weight issues won't ever keep the weight off. In order for someone to get in shape, it takes some real dedicated effort. If going outside, setting aside 1/2 hour 3 days a week, or getting to the gym is too much of a hurdle for you to exercise, you're never going to get into shape.
Plus, who wants to work up a sweat while at work? Smelling like you just got back from the gym won't win you any points with the boss.
But don't you see. They are a marketing company and that's why this is likely to work. Their job is to get as many eyes as possible to view advertisements. If they could take information from your phone (location, what you receive in text messages, maybe even what you say) and directly advertise to you, that is very effective. The real question is when will we as consumers get tired of having adverts invade every portion of our lives. It's also a little scary to think that Google will now be able to go beyond just your Internet activities to build information about you. They may not be evil now, but there is nothing to say they'll stay that way.
How big are these things? Could Apple fit 16 of them inside a Nano? That seems like an important piece of information that has been left out of the article.
would this law apply to someone posting to a message board? or to an email that gets posted to the Internet? in the end, this sounds like a tough law to enforce that has some easy workarounds.
A job might be a better place to use this than video games. I know I'm a lot more stressed at work than when I'm playing DS. Clippy could start throwing up on your screen if you're working too hard.
the headline is at least kind of mis-leading.
The question regarding Habeas Corpus has very little to do with habeas corpus (your right to due process...in other words, your right to appear before a judge and argue that you are innocent instead of just rotting in jail or dealing with the military) and a whole lot to do with classifications of persons.
Specifically, the question (at least in the Sup. Ct. opinion regarding Hamdi)is who qualifies as an unlawful enemy combatant. Unlawful enemy combatants get just about zero (0) due process, meaning the military can capture, detain, question, etc. with out ever giving them access to any sort of court or tribunal.
The question is pretty much answered but becomes more difficult when the person the military is calling an unlawful enemy combatant claims to be a US Citizen. This happened. The nagging question is "who gets to decide who is an unlawful enemy combatant and is it subject to any judicial review?" The short explanation of the long answer is that The President gets to decide, especially if there is a war going on, and there is very, very little opportunity for the person to appeal to any other source. O'Connor wrote the latest opinion and the language made it sound like there might be a right to SOME sort of due process, like maybe a hearing before a military tribunal, but nothing like we generally consider full due process.
And before anyone gets there undies in a wad about the administration, this issue was settled during the civil war while Lincoln was president. The only real twist here is that there is the distinct possibility that the President could claim that we are in a state of war with terrorism perpetually, so that what was considered a war-power becomes an always-power.
I'll cut it off there. Constitutional Law was really interesting, though. A headline that would be at least as accurate could say "Senate Refuses to Limit Executive's Ability to Enforce and Protect the Constitution Of the United States."
Wow. After reading the comments, America really is sue happy.
It does seem belligerent for the man not to show his receipt when asked. From the perspective of the CC employee, he sees someone he suspects might be shoplifting; he asks for a receipt to verify that he is in fact not; the man refuses. What is the natural next step? Call the police to settle the issue.
The officer on the other hand, does seem overly aggressive. He sees thieves and child abusers all day long. When 99% of the people he interacts with are clearly criminals, naturally he assumes this guy is one too. That doesn't make it OK however. Once he realized the guy wasn't shop lifting, he should have let him go.
CC shouldn't be sued; I don't see how they did anything wrong here. Just to try to appease their customer, they should call him and apologize and send him a $100 gift certificate. The officer should be slapped on the wrist and placed on leave for a while.
Nobody goes to court. Nobody wastes any more tax money than we have to.
Really neither AT&T nor Apple lose on the unlocked iPhone. Apple gets to sell more iPhones at $600 a pop and AT&T doesn't lose anything since people who want to do this weren't going to switch to AT&T anyway. I doubt they'll choose to go after this kid since it wouldn't result in anything other than bad publicity.
I'm a little confused how they are able to edit music. There used to be a business near where I live called Clean Flix that would edit and sell movies for content. They found a legal loophole that allowed them to run for a while, but after battling with the movie industry for several years, they were finally shut down.
How is Walmart able to edit music and Clean Flix not able to edit movies? Is it just because Walmart is such a behemoth? Could Walmart edit my movies?
Slashdot Mirror
I realize global warming is popular, but it's a bit early to declare it the #1 man-made disaster. First of all, the jury is still out on whether or not humans contribute in a significant way to global warming. #2 It hasn't caused any disasters yet. 10 more years of research and allowing the political skew to die down will give us a much clearer view of what is really happening.
I wonder if the US offshores it's cyberhacking to India... I was looking at jobs at Symantec the other day and noticed much of their programming force is outsourced to India. That seems a little unsafe.
I have no idea what the laws are in Sweden, but I suspect he is in trouble for posting the information to his website. But this brings up a dilemma I've always had with hacking. Is it possible to do it legally? I've always thought it would be fun to do, but I'm also opposed to breaking any laws. I value the law over getting some satisfaction over hacking into someone else's computer. So the question is, is it possible to practice without breaking laws?
It seems to me that anyone who is just looking for a quick fix or convenient means to fix their weight issues won't ever keep the weight off. In order for someone to get in shape, it takes some real dedicated effort. If going outside, setting aside 1/2 hour 3 days a week, or getting to the gym is too much of a hurdle for you to exercise, you're never going to get into shape. Plus, who wants to work up a sweat while at work? Smelling like you just got back from the gym won't win you any points with the boss.
But don't you see. They are a marketing company and that's why this is likely to work. Their job is to get as many eyes as possible to view advertisements. If they could take information from your phone (location, what you receive in text messages, maybe even what you say) and directly advertise to you, that is very effective. The real question is when will we as consumers get tired of having adverts invade every portion of our lives. It's also a little scary to think that Google will now be able to go beyond just your Internet activities to build information about you. They may not be evil now, but there is nothing to say they'll stay that way.
Yeah, yeah. I'm pretty sure this happened to me when I tried to register microsoft.com! Give me my domain name back!
How big are these things? Could Apple fit 16 of them inside a Nano? That seems like an important piece of information that has been left out of the article.
would this law apply to someone posting to a message board? or to an email that gets posted to the Internet? in the end, this sounds like a tough law to enforce that has some easy workarounds.
a program that finds Google's newest acquisitions, then writes an article titled "X bought by Google, Some Fear Privacy Issues."
A job might be a better place to use this than video games. I know I'm a lot more stressed at work than when I'm playing DS. Clippy could start throwing up on your screen if you're working too hard.
the headline is at least kind of mis-leading. The question regarding Habeas Corpus has very little to do with habeas corpus (your right to due process...in other words, your right to appear before a judge and argue that you are innocent instead of just rotting in jail or dealing with the military) and a whole lot to do with classifications of persons. Specifically, the question (at least in the Sup. Ct. opinion regarding Hamdi)is who qualifies as an unlawful enemy combatant. Unlawful enemy combatants get just about zero (0) due process, meaning the military can capture, detain, question, etc. with out ever giving them access to any sort of court or tribunal. The question is pretty much answered but becomes more difficult when the person the military is calling an unlawful enemy combatant claims to be a US Citizen. This happened. The nagging question is "who gets to decide who is an unlawful enemy combatant and is it subject to any judicial review?" The short explanation of the long answer is that The President gets to decide, especially if there is a war going on, and there is very, very little opportunity for the person to appeal to any other source. O'Connor wrote the latest opinion and the language made it sound like there might be a right to SOME sort of due process, like maybe a hearing before a military tribunal, but nothing like we generally consider full due process. And before anyone gets there undies in a wad about the administration, this issue was settled during the civil war while Lincoln was president. The only real twist here is that there is the distinct possibility that the President could claim that we are in a state of war with terrorism perpetually, so that what was considered a war-power becomes an always-power. I'll cut it off there. Constitutional Law was really interesting, though. A headline that would be at least as accurate could say "Senate Refuses to Limit Executive's Ability to Enforce and Protect the Constitution Of the United States."
Wow. After reading the comments, America really is sue happy.
It does seem belligerent for the man not to show his receipt when asked. From the perspective of the CC employee, he sees someone he suspects might be shoplifting; he asks for a receipt to verify that he is in fact not; the man refuses. What is the natural next step? Call the police to settle the issue.
The officer on the other hand, does seem overly aggressive. He sees thieves and child abusers all day long. When 99% of the people he interacts with are clearly criminals, naturally he assumes this guy is one too. That doesn't make it OK however. Once he realized the guy wasn't shop lifting, he should have let him go.
CC shouldn't be sued; I don't see how they did anything wrong here. Just to try to appease their customer, they should call him and apologize and send him a $100 gift certificate. The officer should be slapped on the wrist and placed on leave for a while.
Nobody goes to court. Nobody wastes any more tax money than we have to.
Really neither AT&T nor Apple lose on the unlocked iPhone. Apple gets to sell more iPhones at $600 a pop and AT&T doesn't lose anything since people who want to do this weren't going to switch to AT&T anyway. I doubt they'll choose to go after this kid since it wouldn't result in anything other than bad publicity.
I'm a little confused how they are able to edit music. There used to be a business near where I live called Clean Flix that would edit and sell movies for content. They found a legal loophole that allowed them to run for a while, but after battling with the movie industry for several years, they were finally shut down. How is Walmart able to edit music and Clean Flix not able to edit movies? Is it just because Walmart is such a behemoth? Could Walmart edit my movies?
I smell a new episode of Dirty Jobs.