If there's one thing US cowboy cops and UK bobbies can agree on, it's that they don't like people "getting away" with a crime based on a technicality. I'd be interested to see if any instance was ever as simple as this, or if the person was harassed for it.
The new customer service agreement is effective June 15, 2006.
Retroactive by 13 days? Isn't that just a kick in the face. Sure, you can cancel right now, but then they'll just look through that data out of spite. After all, you're no longer a customer and they no longer have to abide by their privacy policy.
grandfather poster was pointing out that it doesn't matter what speed the cafe has if you're grabbing a torrent of the latest Harry Potter movie from a 40KB/s source in Bumbleskunk, Ohio.
Um, I think that's an amazingly bad idea. It's one thing to support a decrease in policing/surveillance because of the nobility of freedom -- it's another thing entirely to hope crime happens so you can exert vengeance on the wicked.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Doesn't say anything about the government there. Though, it's usually far easier to argue that a private organization has broken a tresspassing/theft law than to prove this.
Think about it this way: a business can't force a search of your belongings even if you're on their premisis. They can't only ask (and force) you to leave if you do not comply. Regardless of any contract that have by way of a sign outside the front door stating they "reserve the right to inspect packages".
In that case, why haven't governments been doing this for years? Since driving is a privledge, simply put a caveat in the licence application stating that the car is subject to search at any time on state-owned roads.
A single person's testimony would be enough to force a company to divulge information like that? Just respond saying "no, we are in compliance, and employee X has a personal grudge."
Assuming you have done nothing illegal, they won't have the necessary evidence on their own to even bring the matter to court.
I don't know what Good Faith Clause you're referring to, but we usually don't allow those types of exceptions in Law. A racist cop could start blasting into a crowd of black kids in "good faith" that he's preventing crime, but ignorance of the law cannot be used as a defense.
If you're referring to something the teacher has signed allowing the school to search his school-owned posessions, then you're on to something. Though if its his laptop, he can't sign away his constitutional protection against search and siezure via a contract.
Some people think that by massive surveilance you will create the perfect system where all the guilty are jailed and all the innocent are protected. The same people should take a history lesson about East Germany and the Soviet Union.
No need to go in depth, they just need to a graph of crime per capita over years. The number of 0%s this chart will contain will also be zero percent. Therefore, expecting such a value at any point in the future is, from a statistical standpoint, lunacy.
So, yes, as long as you buy Microsoft (and probably Adobe) software this is what you should
expect. The auditing clause is not limited to England, but is a worlwide clause.
At least in the US, you can't sign away certain rights in a contract. Especially personal freedom (indentured servitude), but I'd imagine fourth amendment protection against unreasonable search and siezure is one of them as well. A blanket search based on a "tip" is never good enough. The clause is likely void.
That has to be the only explanation. Asking a private enterprise to come in and check you out for crime (which, at least in the US, isn't bound by the same rules as the police, especially search) has got to rank up there with the dumbest ideas imaginable.
What's the potential gain? That the BSA would find they're in full compliance and they'd get more business via a "seal of approval" or something? It's insane.
It's all about cost versus risk. In this case, the risk of WinZip stormtroopers crashing through the skylight and throwing flash-bangs is so low as to be laughable. Microsoft, not so much...
Is it a police organization? A government agency charged with protecting the virtue of copyright? What company in their right mind lets some schmuck come in and do an audit without a warrant?
'Perhaps the most important change made in the game mechanics of RE4 was fixing the camera behind Leon, providing a tight third-person shot through which the player could experience the action. Through this move, Leon has become every protagonist from every horror film ever made.
I saw it as exactly the opposite. Resident Evil was never known for it's camera freedom, but placing it in a fixed position behind Leon essentially removed all the fright from any live action moments (at least for me), relegating it to the FMVs. I'll illustrate the scariest moments I remember from earlier installments:
Resident Evil 1: Entering the first room with the dogs. The view is low to the ground as you enter and stop. You hear a new sound -- a strange clicking sound. Before you take a few steps in, a black shape lunges into frame from behind your perspective and starts eating Jill's face.
Resident Evil 1: Leaping hunters. After your first death at the hand of a hunter's leaping slash, that shrill cry is still scary. Because you can see every moment of the lengthy (at least for an attack) jump and the wait to see if you survive the hit is nearly interminable. That just doesn't translate well to a nearly first-person perspective (and didn't in Deadly Silence, either)
Resident Evil 2: The first licker room. You enter, the view is from outside through the window. You see the thing crawling effortlessly along the wall and just know it's going to pop right out soon.
See it from their point of view. "Horrors, here comes that damn human again! Is there no end for it's thirst for blood?
Muds/mmorpgs can do this really well with custom NPC responses. Have your orc wander into Hobbiton. At first all the little tweens are curious and interested. When you start slaughtering a few, they begin running after you initiate combat. Before long, simply entering the town brings area-shouts of "Look out, it's $N, the deathbringer!"
Not at all. However, the way he is going about it is all wrong.
The hypothetical situation stated is "we suspect a teacher has done X, what do we do." The answer should not be "allow countrywide surveillance on internet traffic." In fact, we already have a convenient (albeit less sure) method of finding out if he/she's guilty:
1) Get warrant
2) Install tap on teacher's PC (not on the ISP so it can be abused)
3) Profit (or not, depending on if the crime was really commited). Be sure to ignore all other evidence of crime not specified on the warrant, if discovered.
Now the other side of this is that programs depend on the services the OS provides. They don't reinvent the wheel all the time, they use what's there. In the case of Media Player, you lose ALL media playback if you remove it, as happens in Windows XP N. The thing is the guts of Media Player aren't in the exe file, you can delete that if you want and it'll stop working, but media playback stays
I've already gone that far, guess I should've been more specific.
What I'd really like is a way to stop Windows from continually re-registering file extentions to WMP on a random basis, each time starting the install program, which is only one-click if I remember, no options or cancel button short of unplugging the machine. And regardless of how I change IE options, it does the same thing whenever I go to a page with an embedded.wmv or.asf.
Sure, it's their perogative to make an OS that not only keeps WMP on the system despite most users' best efforts (for their own good) and continually harangues them to repent if they say otherwise, but it's also my perogative to start pulling out guts until I get the thing running the way I like.
And of course, if I ever accidentally let Windows Update run itself, it will immediately conclude that WMP is broken and reinstall it.
Slashdot Mirror
If there's one thing US cowboy cops and UK bobbies can agree on, it's that they don't like people "getting away" with a crime based on a technicality. I'd be interested to see if any instance was ever as simple as this, or if the person was harassed for it.
Why can't more people see this clumsy manipulation for what it is?
Because it works every time. Century after century.
The new customer service agreement is effective June 15, 2006.
Retroactive by 13 days? Isn't that just a kick in the face. Sure, you can cancel right now, but then they'll just look through that data out of spite. After all, you're no longer a customer and they no longer have to abide by their privacy policy.
Seeing as they won't be able to make any money if they refuse -- this is going to be law -- it's not really a choice.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: it's time to start encrypting everything
Doesn't work everywhere. In England, isn't it illegal to not provide encryption keys to the police if they request now?
grandfather poster was pointing out that it doesn't matter what speed the cafe has if you're grabbing a torrent of the latest Harry Potter movie from a 40KB/s source in Bumbleskunk, Ohio.
Well, hey, tentacle hentai doesn't download itself...
Um, I think that's an amazingly bad idea. It's one thing to support a decrease in policing/surveillance because of the nobility of freedom -- it's another thing entirely to hope crime happens so you can exert vengeance on the wicked.
SIMPSONS ALREADY DID IT.
nah, an LPC mud
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Doesn't say anything about the government there. Though, it's usually far easier to argue that a private organization has broken a tresspassing/theft law than to prove this.
Think about it this way: a business can't force a search of your belongings even if you're on their premisis. They can't only ask (and force) you to leave if you do not comply. Regardless of any contract that have by way of a sign outside the front door stating they "reserve the right to inspect packages".
In that case, why haven't governments been doing this for years? Since driving is a privledge, simply put a caveat in the licence application stating that the car is subject to search at any time on state-owned roads.
A single person's testimony would be enough to force a company to divulge information like that? Just respond saying "no, we are in compliance, and employee X has a personal grudge."
Assuming you have done nothing illegal, they won't have the necessary evidence on their own to even bring the matter to court.
I don't know what Good Faith Clause you're referring to, but we usually don't allow those types of exceptions in Law. A racist cop could start blasting into a crowd of black kids in "good faith" that he's preventing crime, but ignorance of the law cannot be used as a defense.
If you're referring to something the teacher has signed allowing the school to search his school-owned posessions, then you're on to something. Though if its his laptop, he can't sign away his constitutional protection against search and siezure via a contract.
Some people think that by massive surveilance you will create the perfect system where all the guilty are jailed and all the innocent are protected. The same people should take a history lesson about East Germany and the Soviet Union.
No need to go in depth, they just need to a graph of crime per capita over years. The number of 0%s this chart will contain will also be zero percent. Therefore, expecting such a value at any point in the future is, from a statistical standpoint, lunacy.
So, yes, as long as you buy Microsoft (and probably Adobe) software this is what you should expect. The auditing clause is not limited to England, but is a worlwide clause.
At least in the US, you can't sign away certain rights in a contract. Especially personal freedom (indentured servitude), but I'd imagine fourth amendment protection against unreasonable search and siezure is one of them as well. A blanket search based on a "tip" is never good enough. The clause is likely void.
That has to be the only explanation. Asking a private enterprise to come in and check you out for crime (which, at least in the US, isn't bound by the same rules as the police, especially search) has got to rank up there with the dumbest ideas imaginable.
What's the potential gain? That the BSA would find they're in full compliance and they'd get more business via a "seal of approval" or something? It's insane.
lol... "Oh shit, it's the WinZip police! Hide!"
It's all about cost versus risk. In this case, the risk of WinZip stormtroopers crashing through the skylight and throwing flash-bangs is so low as to be laughable. Microsoft, not so much...
Is it a police organization? A government agency charged with protecting the virtue of copyright? What company in their right mind lets some schmuck come in and do an audit without a warrant?
Unless this is a normal occurance in England...
All games in the Resident Evil series are throwbacks to the "die, memorize, win" method of video games.
'Perhaps the most important change made in the game mechanics of RE4 was fixing the camera behind Leon, providing a tight third-person shot through which the player could experience the action. Through this move, Leon has become every protagonist from every horror film ever made.
I saw it as exactly the opposite. Resident Evil was never known for it's camera freedom, but placing it in a fixed position behind Leon essentially removed all the fright from any live action moments (at least for me), relegating it to the FMVs. I'll illustrate the scariest moments I remember from earlier installments:
Resident Evil 1: Entering the first room with the dogs. The view is low to the ground as you enter and stop. You hear a new sound -- a strange clicking sound. Before you take a few steps in, a black shape lunges into frame from behind your perspective and starts eating Jill's face.
Resident Evil 1: Leaping hunters. After your first death at the hand of a hunter's leaping slash, that shrill cry is still scary. Because you can see every moment of the lengthy (at least for an attack) jump and the wait to see if you survive the hit is nearly interminable. That just doesn't translate well to a nearly first-person perspective (and didn't in Deadly Silence, either)
Resident Evil 2: The first licker room. You enter, the view is from outside through the window. You see the thing crawling effortlessly along the wall and just know it's going to pop right out soon.
See it from their point of view. "Horrors, here comes that damn human again! Is there no end for it's thirst for blood?
Muds/mmorpgs can do this really well with custom NPC responses. Have your orc wander into Hobbiton. At first all the little tweens are curious and interested. When you start slaughtering a few, they begin running after you initiate combat. Before long, simply entering the town brings area-shouts of "Look out, it's $N, the deathbringer!"
How about the bolt of fear that ran up your back when Hackmap suddenly displays a blip marked "MSLE" closing in on you?
Not at all. However, the way he is going about it is all wrong.
The hypothetical situation stated is "we suspect a teacher has done X, what do we do." The answer should not be "allow countrywide surveillance on internet traffic." In fact, we already have a convenient (albeit less sure) method of finding out if he/she's guilty:
1) Get warrant
2) Install tap on teacher's PC (not on the ISP so it can be abused)
3) Profit (or not, depending on if the crime was really commited). Be sure to ignore all other evidence of crime not specified on the warrant, if discovered.
Now the other side of this is that programs depend on the services the OS provides. They don't reinvent the wheel all the time, they use what's there. In the case of Media Player, you lose ALL media playback if you remove it, as happens in Windows XP N. The thing is the guts of Media Player aren't in the exe file, you can delete that if you want and it'll stop working, but media playback stays
.wmv or .asf.
I've already gone that far, guess I should've been more specific.
What I'd really like is a way to stop Windows from continually re-registering file extentions to WMP on a random basis, each time starting the install program, which is only one-click if I remember, no options or cancel button short of unplugging the machine. And regardless of how I change IE options, it does the same thing whenever I go to a page with an embedded
Sure, it's their perogative to make an OS that not only keeps WMP on the system despite most users' best efforts (for their own good) and continually harangues them to repent if they say otherwise, but it's also my perogative to start pulling out guts until I get the thing running the way I like.
And of course, if I ever accidentally let Windows Update run itself, it will immediately conclude that WMP is broken and reinstall it.