If I ever did this, I would explain their rights during installation (redistribution etc) to avoid that. Although if they asked the question in response to seeing a dell, I may just point them to the dell page without further explanation, avoiding the issue altogether.
Since I am one of those who consider the right to redistribute to be an important feature, I wouldn't leave the topic uncovered.
... and then they'd ask me how much it was... and when I told them it was free, they'd be disappointed!
http://www.ubuntu.com/support/paid Then tell them it's $250 with a years support package, but because you're a licenced distributor, you can install it for nothing, just for them. Then it has percieved value, it's a good deal and they're getting it because they know an insider! While people don't want to get something of no value, they love getting something of value for nothing and they love "knowing the right person". Either that or tell them the price of a Dell with Ubuntu preinstalled, which is not nothing and definitely has credibility as "value".
The spirit of the law has clearly been violated, but it appears some judges seem keen on giving this guy his illegally gained money simply due to the fact that one cannot deceive a computer, only a human.
The way I see it, it's a judge keen on following the law as written. From TFA: "The judge appreciated the absurdity of the situation, and expressed disappointment that the Justice Department had not brought criminal charges for computer hacking."
The case is being appealed, so it would seem that if they take action on criminal charges now, the situation can still be recovered without reinterpreting the law, although I agree that the law needs reform. As you state, that is Congress job, not the judges.
Europe thought of it before. From TFA:
In the meantime, Congress could clear all this up with a simple amendment to clarify the law. "The European Union revised their insider trading laws to make it clear that any gaining of inside information by criminal activity would be a violation of insider trading laws,"
So the question is, would physically breaking into a company, discovering something that would effect the prices of it's stock, and then acting on it be illegal? Yes it would.
No, the question in this case is would it fit the legal definition if "insider trading". At this point, it seems no it wouldn't. As the article states (and you), this could have been solved:
The judge appreciated the absurdity of the situation, and expressed disappointment that the Justice Department had not brought criminal charges for computer hacking.
And there is example of the law being amended in Europe:
"The European Union revised their insider trading laws to make it clear that any gaining of inside information by criminal activity would be a violation of insider trading laws,"
There were never ay charges against this guy for breaking into the computers in the first place. Had that been established, I think we would be talking about a different topic today.
I'd put him in that category and take his profits away just to deter this type of behavior in the future.
That should most definitely not be done by judges. Legislators decide what type of behaviour should be detered. I agree that this law appears to be inadequate, but the solution is to fix the legislation, not have judges twisting the law to suit their own definition of justice.
"Dorozhko did not breach any fiduciary or similar duty 'in connection with' the purchase or sale of a security." - Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of United States District Court
The issue isn't whether it was "insider" information or definitions of insiders. The issue is that the insider trading laws deal with people who breach "fiduciary or similar duty". Employment or similar connection would have imposed a duty on him. Possession of information does not necessarily impose duty in a legal sense. Otherwise, it would be possible in certain situation to entrap and force duties on you by giving you information. Clearly this would be unacceptable.
However, the article implies that if the government had brought the correct charges related to breaking the security, the problem could have been dealt with:
The judge appreciated the absurdity of the situation, and expressed disappointment that the Justice Department had not brought criminal charges for computer hacking.
and states emphatically that the law could easily be amended suitably:
In the meantime, Congress could clear all this up with a simple amendment to clarify the law. "The European Union revised their insider trading laws to make it clear that any gaining of inside information by criminal activity would be a violation of insider trading laws," Mr. Langevoort said.
He also influenced the racism of the times. The quote isn't "out of context" in the sense that it is not contrary to his views in general. Some people want to shout down Darwins links to eugenics based on todays view of that subject. However, proponents of eugenics beleived they were doing what was necessary for the future of the human race.
From wikipedia : "Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering."
Also: "The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1865, drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin."
If anyone has a reference for Darwin refuting his cousin's interpretation of his work, I'd be interested to see it. As to whether he merely thought it was inevitable or was advocating it, it is clear from his words "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries..." that he was not advocating at that time an immediate eugenics plan to be put into place, but also considering:
The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. ...it seems that he considered it a desirable outcome, hence the lack of material from Darwin refuting eugenics.
Another quote from Descent of Man: We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the
process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and
the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost
skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to
believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak
constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak
members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has
attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be
highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of
care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic
race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so
ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
To equate Darwin with death camps and gas chambers is inaccuarate, but the ideas of the Nazi's were definitely based on solidly on Darwin's work, though with a wildly differing social philosophy attached. A final quote that verifies the differences:
The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
So he would certainly have regarded the Nazis as evil, but the difference arises from social philosophy rather than a corruption of scientific ideas.
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes..."
exterminate... savage races... (and) anthropomorphous apes..."
This is why we should not have government schools -- because we no longer have a common set of beliefs and every set of teachings offends a substantial minority of people.
It should be left up to the parents. They should choose their children's school. No more one-size-fits-all government truth/propaganda education. We should be past that now.
I agree. I think that perhaps if the founders of the US had forseen compulsory government education systems, they would have prohibited it in the first amendment. They didn't seem to want a national indoctrination system, but such systems were previously religious. The principle is the same though.
It's been a while, but I'm pretty sure that what I was taught in school about global warming was pretty close to what you outlined in your post (Australian private high school, 1980's). The basics aren't very complex, pressurization, heat transfer.
If we believe our children are stupid and incapable of learning advanced topics, then they will fulfill our prophecy for us.
Difference being that while predatory behaviour is a flaw on socialist theories (they didn't take it properly into account) is a key concept -and main force, on capitalist ones.
You can't be serious. The government takes money I've worked for from me, then does various disagreeable things with it including giving it to people who haven't worked for it. If I attempt not to participate in this ludicrous scheme, I'll promptly find myself in gaol.
The way you describe an action can definitely denote approval. Your description of child sexual abusers (note that my description denotes disapproval) was that they are "people who decide to sexually pleasure children". This description denotes approval. If you think I'm being unfair in my interpretation, I suggest you find an english/literature teacher or someone similarly qualified to examine a statement and explain meaning (perhaps a lawyer, if you have one) provide the statement to them (you don't have to admit that you made it) and ask them to interpret whether it denotes approval or not. I am quite confident of the result you will get.
If you don't understand how that meaning is conveyed by your words, then I wouldn't be at all surprised that people think you are weird. You could be unintentionally giving all sorts of impressions about yourself without meaning to or realising it.
And yes killing to me is fanatical.
I regard killing as something that can be right or wrong depending on circumstance. This has been the predominant view of humans for all recorded history and does not seem likely to change because you don't like it. You have stated that you have fought back against bullies. I commend you for it. That is the appropriate response. You seemed quite pleased with the thought that you could win such a confrontation. Yet what happens if the bully threatens lethal violence? If the bully can only be stopped by you using lethal force? Should we allow bad people to rule us simply because they are willing to escalate confrontations to a level of violence that we find reprehensible?
I have never had to kill anyone. I hope I never do kill anyone, but there are circumstances in which I would be willing to kill, and I would be remaining within the boundaries of law to do so. I would kill to prevent harm to my children, but I would not tend to take revenge and kill for harm done.
Sex is pleasure, there is no other way to describe it;
Actually, there are plenty of other ways to describe it. People have different experiences with sex and not all of them are pleasurable. You bring up rape, which is a sexual experience that people have found very traumatic. It is thoroughly documented that rape has been used as a form of torture in some political regimes. Another sexual experience that many people have found very traumatic is child sex abuse.
I did not say I approve of people who have sex with children.
Your approval is revealed by the way you refer to them as "people who decide to sexually pleasure children", which comes across has you putting a positive connotation with it.
self justification
Another Troll, and a very pathetic one. Dishonest and libelous as well.
No, I stated that I suspect something. I honestly do suspect that of you. As to libel, I have merely stated a suspicion I have, not made a false statement about you. You have about me though, calling me a liar, dishonest, immoral etc. You have falsely accused me of libel and in the process libelled me.
Nevertheless I find myself in agreement with swb.
Again, since you agree with murder; your moral character is showing through.
In many places it wouldn't be considered murder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine Have a good read, the law would be on my side. There are also codes of morality that would hold me blameless for such an act. Not so easy to find for the "people who decide to sexually pleasure children" though.
Believe me I have dealt with bullies before. At a very young age I realized that I could actually fight back against Tough Guys and asshats like you and actually win. I wish I knew where you lived.
Since I have not implied the threat of violence to any but those who decide to attempt to have sex with my children, your assertion that you can "fight back" against people like me carries the direct implication that you would make such a decision. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but you really should be more careful what you say. This is the internet, after all. Anyone might see what you've said.
I don't think it is any of our responsibility to make the internet as a whole an environment that is safe for children.
Exactly. Like the park. I make the park safe for my children, by being there with them or other measures as I see fit. If we each do likewise, there is no need to alter the park and restrict access etc.
In fact, that's quite the opposite of what I think most adults want.
I hope you're right. I suspect too many people are not likely to think clearly about it, not understanding the issues.
People who have a psychological imperative to kill are bad, and much worse than people who have sex with children. Your perversion is showing through.
Well, that's your opinion. I suspect your obvious approval of "people who decide to sexually pleasure children" is actually just self justification. Nevertheless I find myself in agreement with swb. Should you act out this decision in my presence, my "psychological imperative to kill" is likely to provide me with the decisive advantage in the ensuing "debate".
If protecting my own children is perversion, you can expect me to remain perverted.
Many people consider the use of lethal force justified in protecting their own children from sexual exploitation. Your view that people ought to be imprisoned for holding such views has no rational justification and cannot be implemented in a free society. Your solution is worse than the problem you wish to solve.
Psst. Medicine is a science, doctors are supposed to know about it enough to practice it on you. In any case, there are plenty of examples of scientists having been wrong about something. They seem to be quite like humans.
The ideas of social darwinism used by the Nazis were not founded in science. They
were not based on Darwins ideas and Darwin would have rolled over in his grave had
he heard of such perversion of his work.
Darwin explicitly advocated those ideas:
"At some future period,
not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will
almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the
world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor
Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p.
236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his
nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a
more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape
as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and
the gorilla."
The Descent of Man by Charles Darwin
For people looking to set up generations of wealth, yes. Or people with a vision to benefit society (or be seen to benefit society as a PR/tax exemption exercise).
Look at all the private funding of education that has happened over time.
Businesses are run by investors, who are traditionally quite short sighted.
Surely you jest? Are you a wage earner, needing to get paid this month for work done this month? Mediocre investors are short sighted. Succesful investors typically take a longer term view than most people.
Slashdot Mirror
If I ever did this, I would explain their rights during installation (redistribution etc) to avoid that. Although if they asked the question in response to seeing a dell, I may just point them to the dell page without further explanation, avoiding the issue altogether.
Since I am one of those who consider the right to redistribute to be an important feature, I wouldn't leave the topic uncovered.
... and then they'd ask me how much it was... and when I told them it was free, they'd be disappointed!
http://www.ubuntu.com/support/paid
Then tell them it's $250 with a years support package, but because you're a licenced distributor, you can install it for nothing, just for them. Then it has percieved value, it's a good deal and they're getting it because they know an insider! While people don't want to get something of no value, they love getting something of value for nothing and they love "knowing the right person". Either that or tell them the price of a Dell with Ubuntu preinstalled, which is not nothing and definitely has credibility as "value".
lamebrained alcohol ....... Aaaaahhhh!
The spirit of the law has clearly been violated, but it appears some judges seem keen on giving this guy his illegally gained money simply due to the fact that one cannot deceive a computer, only a human.
The way I see it, it's a judge keen on following the law as written. From TFA: "The judge appreciated the absurdity of the situation, and expressed disappointment that the Justice Department had not brought criminal charges for computer hacking."
The case is being appealed, so it would seem that if they take action on criminal charges now, the situation can still be recovered without reinterpreting the law, although I agree that the law needs reform. As you state, that is Congress job, not the judges.
Europe thought of it before. From TFA:
In the meantime, Congress could clear all this up with a simple amendment to clarify the law. "The European Union revised their insider trading laws to make it clear that any gaining of inside information by criminal activity would be a violation of insider trading laws,"
So the question is, would physically breaking into a company, discovering something that would effect the prices of it's stock, and then acting on it be illegal? Yes it would.
No, the question in this case is would it fit the legal definition if "insider trading". At this point, it seems no it wouldn't. As the article states (and you), this could have been solved:
The judge appreciated the absurdity of the situation, and expressed disappointment that the Justice Department had not brought criminal charges for computer hacking.
And there is example of the law being amended in Europe:
"The European Union revised their insider trading laws to make it clear that any gaining of inside information by criminal activity would be a violation of insider trading laws,"
There were never ay charges against this guy for breaking into the computers in the first place. Had that been established, I think we would be talking about a different topic today.
Correct
I'd put him in that category and take his profits away just to deter this type of behavior in the future.
That should most definitely not be done by judges. Legislators decide what type of behaviour should be detered. I agree that this law appears to be inadequate, but the solution is to fix the legislation, not have judges twisting the law to suit their own definition of justice.
"Dorozhko did not breach any fiduciary or similar duty 'in connection with' the purchase or sale of a security." - Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of United States District Court
The issue isn't whether it was "insider" information or definitions of insiders. The issue is that the insider trading laws deal with people who breach "fiduciary or similar duty". Employment or similar connection would have imposed a duty on him. Possession of information does not necessarily impose duty in a legal sense. Otherwise, it would be possible in certain situation to entrap and force duties on you by giving you information. Clearly this would be unacceptable.
However, the article implies that if the government had brought the correct charges related to breaking the security, the problem could have been dealt with:
The judge appreciated the absurdity of the situation, and expressed disappointment that the Justice Department had not brought criminal charges for computer hacking.
and states emphatically that the law could easily be amended suitably:
In the meantime, Congress could clear all this up with a simple amendment to clarify the law. "The European Union revised their insider trading laws to make it clear that any gaining of inside information by criminal activity would be a violation of insider trading laws," Mr. Langevoort said.
He also influenced the racism of the times. The quote isn't "out of context" in the sense that it is not contrary to his views in general. Some people want to shout down Darwins links to eugenics based on todays view of that subject. However, proponents of eugenics beleived they were doing what was necessary for the future of the human race.
...it seems that he considered it a desirable outcome, hence the lack of material from Darwin refuting eugenics.
From wikipedia : "Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering."
Also: "The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1865, drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin."
If anyone has a reference for Darwin refuting his cousin's interpretation of his work, I'd be interested to see it. As to whether he merely thought it was inevitable or was advocating it, it is clear from his words "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries..." that he was not advocating at that time an immediate eugenics plan to be put into place, but also considering:
The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
Another quote from Descent of Man: We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
To equate Darwin with death camps and gas chambers is inaccuarate, but the ideas of the Nazi's were definitely based on solidly on Darwin's work, though with a wildly differing social philosophy attached. A final quote that verifies the differences:
The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
So he would certainly have regarded the Nazis as evil, but the difference arises from social philosophy rather than a corruption of scientific ideas.
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes..."
... savage races ... (and) anthropomorphous apes..."
exterminate
You need to improve your reading comprehension.
It's been a while, but I'm pretty sure that what I was taught in school about global warming was pretty close to what you outlined in your post (Australian private high school, 1980's). The basics aren't very complex, pressurization, heat transfer.
If we believe our children are stupid and incapable of learning advanced topics, then they will fulfill our prophecy for us.
Indeed, this is a major problem in my opinion.
Difference being that while predatory behaviour is a flaw on socialist theories (they didn't take it properly into account) is a key concept -and main force, on capitalist ones.
You can't be serious. The government takes money I've worked for from me, then does various disagreeable things with it including giving it to people who haven't worked for it. If I attempt not to participate in this ludicrous scheme, I'll promptly find myself in gaol.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=predatory
1. Zoology. preying upon other organisms for food.
Socialism is predatory, by design. It doesn't contain predatory behaviour, it institutionalizes it by force of law.
I don't think I need to say anything about the relationship between predatory behaviour and capitalism, do I?
....
If only people could look at the history of socialist and communist countries they could see for themselves that predatory behaviour is eliminated.
Oh wait
Wasn't that Ron Paul?
If you don't understand how that meaning is conveyed by your words, then I wouldn't be at all surprised that people think you are weird. You could be unintentionally giving all sorts of impressions about yourself without meaning to or realising it. I regard killing as something that can be right or wrong depending on circumstance. This has been the predominant view of humans for all recorded history and does not seem likely to change because you don't like it. You have stated that you have fought back against bullies. I commend you for it. That is the appropriate response. You seemed quite pleased with the thought that you could win such a confrontation. Yet what happens if the bully threatens lethal violence? If the bully can only be stopped by you using lethal force? Should we allow bad people to rule us simply because they are willing to escalate confrontations to a level of violence that we find reprehensible?
I have never had to kill anyone. I hope I never do kill anyone, but there are circumstances in which I would be willing to kill, and I would be remaining within the boundaries of law to do so. I would kill to prevent harm to my children, but I would not tend to take revenge and kill for harm done. Actually, there are plenty of other ways to describe it. People have different experiences with sex and not all of them are pleasurable. You bring up rape, which is a sexual experience that people have found very traumatic. It is thoroughly documented that rape has been used as a form of torture in some political regimes. Another sexual experience that many people have found very traumatic is child sex abuse.
I don't think it is any of our responsibility to make the internet as a whole an environment that is safe for children.
Exactly. Like the park. I make the park safe for my children, by being there with them or other measures as I see fit. If we each do likewise, there is no need to alter the park and restrict access etc.
In fact, that's quite the opposite of what I think most adults want.
I hope you're right. I suspect too many people are not likely to think clearly about it, not understanding the issues.
If protecting my own children is perversion, you can expect me to remain perverted.
Many people consider the use of lethal force justified in protecting their own children from sexual exploitation. Your view that people ought to be imprisoned for holding such views has no rational justification and cannot be implemented in a free society. Your solution is worse than the problem you wish to solve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine
Oh, yes, let's emulate the Soviet Union even more and build a huge wall! That will definitely work.
I think the soviets were trying to keep people in.
The ideas of social darwinism used by the Nazis were not founded in science. They were not based on Darwins ideas and Darwin would have rolled over in his grave had he heard of such perversion of his work.
Darwin explicitly advocated those ideas:
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p. 236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
The Descent of Man by Charles Darwin
As long as 50 years? Maybe more?
For people looking to set up generations of wealth, yes. Or people with a vision to benefit society (or be seen to benefit society as a PR/tax exemption exercise).
Look at all the private funding of education that has happened over time.
Businesses are run by investors, who are traditionally quite short sighted.
Surely you jest? Are you a wage earner, needing to get paid this month for work done this month? Mediocre investors are short sighted. Succesful investors typically take a longer term view than most people.