Leaving a corpse in plain view is not at all like having an Open WAP. One is about leaving evidence of a crime in plain sight while the other is about having a tool with your name on it being open for others to possibly use to do illegal things with.
Now, I don't disagree with the idea that running an Open WAP shouldn't exempt you from police investigations, but please don't make silly analogies.
Court is last resort, not first resort. If a company fails to render services promised and paid for, then they are legally obligated to render them upon penalty of law.
While I do not appreciate the amount of frivolous lawsuits that occur in the system, sometimes the law is the only way to get a disobedient company that is breaking their agreement to do what is right.
Actually, federal law has a similar one-party rule to recordings. So if it crosses a state line, the federal laws preempt whatever state laws there are (Calling Massachusetts, for example).
I will actually turn off the video if it forces me to watch an advertisement. I don't watch TV for the same reason - I refuse to be held captive to advertising and being subjected to several minute gaps in programming. I'd rather watch PPV or go to the movies (timed so that I get there when the previews are over) or just pirate the content.
I don't mind paying for good content, but I will not watch an advertisement.
The school has no right to subvert the legitimate authority of the justice system for matters outside the school house. If the principal feels that the myspace page rises to the level of libel, then he should take it to a court with competent jurisdiction.
If the principal thinks its OK to remove all the computers/computer classes, then by your logic, its OK for rape victims to try to ban sexual intercourse.
Why not an IQ test then? Since it is obvious that not all people are equal in wisdom, but that some people gain wisdom faster and more completely than others, why not allow the qualified amongst us to have the say?
Sorry, speech is allowed regardless of how people react or how it allegedly disrupts* school operations.
(* The exception being usual time, place, and manner restrictions - but one always has the right to express anything they like about their school or teachers within this context)
This philosophy was exposed and practiced by the ancient Greeks (as well as countless other societies). Plato had the same thoughts (The Republic).
The idea that the individual must be protected at the cost of the health of society is a relatively new concept that came about with liberal democracies and protestant Christianity.
Any talk of "culling the heard" should be seen from the most rational point of view. Don't get your personal drama or ego involved because you are repulsed by the idea. Unfortunately, most people are not equipped to participate in the discussion because they are tethered to their own egos and their humanist pragmas.
But the company probably doesn't let employees bring in their own office furniture.
My company wouldn't care if you brought your own office chair. But if you can't see the difference between bringing your own laptop in your briefcase (non-intrusive) vs. wheeling in your sofa up the service elevator, you have some issues.
Aside from the security concerns of having your personal laptop connected to their internal network, inside their firewall, a laptop that they cannot be totally certain (on a day-to-day basis) does not have a malicious program running on it,
Valid point.
they also have the liablility of "what happens if your personal property gets fried or stolen while you had it at the office?", etc.
Honestly, if humans are so selfish to be incapable of looking inwards to their own behaviors and finding a way to modifying those behaviors, they deserve the destruction they will cause themselves.
If your only experience with Tor was having to clean up an exploited website, wouldn't your first reaction be, "Fuck you, Tor" ?
Given that Tor connections are a subset of internet connections, and that non-Tor internet connections are used all the time for illegal activities such as what you describe, I do not really agree. I think your response is a bit irrational.
Bit torrent gets blocked when a network admin is annoyed with the side-effects: both bandwidth usage and one's cover-your-ass instinct.
Thats not true. Heard of the common carrier laws? An ISP is not responsible for the illegal activities of its users. Why did you mention bittorrent throttling when such throttling obviously has nothing to do with the illegal uses of bittorent? You don't throttle something that you feel is so 'illegal' that you would rather not have in the first place.
My point is this: Tor is something used only by a small number of people (a guess). Network administrators and such might see Tor as something which provides them with no value, but great liability. Why, then, would they want to keep it around? It's not nearly as entrenched as e-mail (which certainly has its own problems). It's easy to see why they'd want to eliminate it.
Tor clients are not a liability. If a Tor user does something nefarious, nobody is going to know who did it anyway!
Slashdot Mirror
Are you the Bad Analogy Guy by any chance?
Leaving a corpse in plain view is not at all like having an Open WAP. One is about leaving evidence of a crime in plain sight while the other is about having a tool with your name on it being open for others to possibly use to do illegal things with.
Now, I don't disagree with the idea that running an Open WAP shouldn't exempt you from police investigations, but please don't make silly analogies.
Insightful?
This is the kind of attitude that is prevalent in society - surrender and give in because its easier than fighting for principle and righteousness.
I'd rather be imprisoned than live the rest of my life with the label associated with pleading guilty to possessing/obtaining CP.
Sad that some people think this way.
Better to go to jail fighting the charge than to accept it and live with the label for the rest of your life.
I'd say its very related to the subject. Sounds like you're on the sick and criminal side of this debate.
Thats the rub. Cloning does not result in exact copies. We also do not know what are the possible long-term side effects or risks are.
Court is last resort, not first resort. If a company fails to render services promised and paid for, then they are legally obligated to render them upon penalty of law.
While I do not appreciate the amount of frivolous lawsuits that occur in the system, sometimes the law is the only way to get a disobedient company that is breaking their agreement to do what is right.
Actually, federal law has a similar one-party rule to recordings. So if it crosses a state line, the federal laws preempt whatever state laws there are (Calling Massachusetts, for example).
You have to log out completely. Ticking the Anonymous box does not magically make Slashdot forget about you.
Even then, they could guess based on cookies and IP addresses (they don't do this).
I will actually turn off the video if it forces me to watch an advertisement. I don't watch TV for the same reason - I refuse to be held captive to advertising and being subjected to several minute gaps in programming. I'd rather watch PPV or go to the movies (timed so that I get there when the previews are over) or just pirate the content.
I don't mind paying for good content, but I will not watch an advertisement.
You're not forced to buy it. Why should Microsoft be required to sell you XP?
Are you saying that Vista is defective but XP isn't?
The school has no right to subvert the legitimate authority of the justice system for matters outside the school house. If the principal feels that the myspace page rises to the level of libel, then he should take it to a court with competent jurisdiction.
If the principal thinks its OK to remove all the computers/computer classes, then by your logic, its OK for rape victims to try to ban sexual intercourse.
Why not an IQ test then? Since it is obvious that not all people are equal in wisdom, but that some people gain wisdom faster and more completely than others, why not allow the qualified amongst us to have the say?
Sorry, speech is allowed regardless of how people react or how it allegedly disrupts* school operations.
(* The exception being usual time, place, and manner restrictions - but one always has the right to express anything they like about their school or teachers within this context)
I would hope that any testing would test more than one piece of equipment on one airplane.
I doubt if this violates the DMCA.
This philosophy was exposed and practiced by the ancient Greeks (as well as countless other societies). Plato had the same thoughts (The Republic).
The idea that the individual must be protected at the cost of the health of society is a relatively new concept that came about with liberal democracies and protestant Christianity.
Any talk of "culling the heard" should be seen from the most rational point of view. Don't get your personal drama or ego involved because you are repulsed by the idea. Unfortunately, most people are not equipped to participate in the discussion because they are tethered to their own egos and their humanist pragmas.
What on earth are you talking about?
'Hello World' runs on Windows. Does that make it a buggy and vulnerable program? Your logic baffles me.
But the company probably doesn't let employees bring in their own office furniture.
My company wouldn't care if you brought your own office chair. But if you can't see the difference between bringing your own laptop in your briefcase (non-intrusive) vs. wheeling in your sofa up the service elevator, you have some issues.
Aside from the security concerns of having your personal laptop connected to their internal network, inside their firewall, a laptop that they cannot be totally certain (on a day-to-day basis) does not have a malicious program running on it,
Valid point.
they also have the liablility of "what happens if your personal property gets fried or stolen while you had it at the office?", etc.
Since when?
Honestly, if humans are so selfish to be incapable of looking inwards to their own behaviors and finding a way to modifying those behaviors, they deserve the destruction they will cause themselves.
Look up the meaning of the word. You can't just add a new meaning because you feel like it.
No, that is burglary AND copyright infringement. Not theft!
Where do you get off MAKING UP their own definitions to words? It boggles my mind!
That is not valid legal theory. The bill of rights only applied to the states after ratification of the 14th Amendment and many lawsuits later.
Regardless, the current tests for applicability of the 1st Amendment would not find anything wrong with the law being proposed.
How can you call somebody a dumbass without actually knowing what happened?
Dumbass.
If your only experience with Tor was having to clean up an exploited website, wouldn't your first reaction be, "Fuck you, Tor" ?
Given that Tor connections are a subset of internet connections, and that non-Tor internet connections are used all the time for illegal activities such as what you describe, I do not really agree. I think your response is a bit irrational.
Bit torrent gets blocked when a network admin is annoyed with the side-effects: both bandwidth usage and one's cover-your-ass instinct.
Thats not true. Heard of the common carrier laws? An ISP is not responsible for the illegal activities of its users. Why did you mention bittorrent throttling when such throttling obviously has nothing to do with the illegal uses of bittorent? You don't throttle something that you feel is so 'illegal' that you would rather not have in the first place.
My point is this: Tor is something used only by a small number of people (a guess). Network administrators and such might see Tor as something which provides them with no value, but great liability. Why, then, would they want to keep it around? It's not nearly as entrenched as e-mail (which certainly has its own problems). It's easy to see why they'd want to eliminate it.
Tor clients are not a liability. If a Tor user does something nefarious, nobody is going to know who did it anyway!