Because the owners were the ones that let that happen. If I want to total my car on purpose, there is no crime involved unless I damage other people's property or try to claim insurance on it. Since it's my property I can damage it all I like without being criminally liable. Likewise, the passwords should've been changed by city employees prior to them being in the court documents, otherwise they should've requested that the judge have the records sealed until such a time as they could be changed.
It depends, if I had kept my keys when I quite my job, I would've almost certainly been arrested for grand theft keys. Given that those particular keys were worth several hundred grand. That's the cost of replacing them and damn near every single lock in the building. A process which would take weeks on a high rise. Theft is definitely a criminal matter, providing the work contract doesn't spell out your right to keep company property.
This isn't really limiting their choices, it's just requiring them to take a step to opt out if they like. Sort of like the move to automatically enrolling people in their companies 401k unless they opt out. Since most people do opt in or at least want to do it, doing so gives most people what they want without having to do any work. Those that don't want to have ample time to opt out if they choose to.
And sometimes it is the appropriate thing to do. Sane defaults dictate that sometimes the default be included and sometimes to be excluded.
Linux can do that because virtually all the software is free either pricewise or GPLed. In which case most of those people are thrilled to have somebody else picking up the tab on the distribution and advertising. In the Windows world, that's not really the case. Much of it is commercial software and the freeware and opensource stuff is so numerous that I doubt MS is interested in taking on the responsibility and cost of hosting those files.
You don't see the problem with that? The people that should be using it are the same ones that would likely get that wrong. Whereas the individuals that don't really need to use it would have very little trouble going into the preferences and disabling it.
Opt in isn't always the best choice, especially when the people that most need to opt in are the ones with the least ability to make an informed decision.
Um, from a 2nd amendment standpoint, if you're not in a well regulated militia you have precisely zero right to be armed. Practically speaking the UK has been getting more and more ridiculous and they do have a complete ban on firearms.
No you just thought it was a good idea because they chose your guy. It was an extremely blatant violation of the US constitution to do so. Specifically the twelfth amendment specifies what should be done when the electoral college fails to come to a result. Intervening to name a winner was the most extreme act of judicial activism I can think of. Ruling in favor of the guy who ultimately was shown to not have the votes was extremely poor judgment. Not to mention that the SCOTUS doesn't get to make non-precedence rulings.
Like how increasing your tax base by using eminent domain to seize private property would be consider as reasonable. Or how corporations have first amendment rights.
You'd have more credibility if you didn't take that pot shot at liberal arts students. It's arguably the most useful degree you can get. While it doesn't set you up for a specific field, it does give you the back ground thinking necessary to accomplish things. A quality of thinking that's sorely lacking in many graduates.
Umm, that activism thing didn't seem to bother W when he nominated his picks for the high court. There's been a pattern in recent years of pro-conservative judicial activism on issues from the 2000 Presidential election to the DC handgun ban to the Lilly Ledbetter ruling. It's asinine to suggest that somehow one person is going to dangerously tip the balance away from that.
Let me get this straight, the party that openly advances homophobia, islamaphobia and racism to get votes somehow is more respectful of the President? Sorry, I can't buy that. Given the amount of focus they've put on his birthplace, alleged link to Islam, I find it very hard to believe that race doesn't figure in prominently into it.
That's the UK, here in the US, anybody that's been charged gets named and shamed. I'm not sure that's right, in fact I'm pretty sure it's not, but it's the way we do things over here. From what I gather in the UK, minors aren't named even when convicted. I hope I'm not correct about that.
Actually, the FBI tried for an entire year to break into a suspect's Truecrypt encrypted volume. And failed to succeed at it, so the Mexican government had to let him off as there was no other evidence available. At least that's if my memory serves.
What you do is secure shred it. Torrents are tricky because they could add distribution on to possession, but as a general rule, if you're view pages via HTTP or FTP and it turns out to be child porn, all you have to do is shred the file. Do so immediately. If it isn't visible when they check the computer, assuming they do, they can't charge you for possession. In order for it to be possession it has to be accessible.
Granted that's not perfect, but it's not likely you'll be charged over a couple images that were immediately and unrecoverably deleted.
I know, and they also don't like it when the government tells them that they have to. Seat belts, motorcycle helmets and speed limits, for instance, contrary to some people's opinions are not civil rights issues. Now, if we knew that the idiot not doing it was the only one that would be affected, we could conceivably roll those laws back, but the reality is that other people end up being affected by such carelessness.
From personal experience, I'd have to say, don't walk anywhere. And if you do be sure to not cross streets and definitely don't assume that the drivers care about crosswalks.
At some point that technology will be available and work. I mean if Honda can include an airbag with some of their motorcycles Motorcycle airbag I doubt that this technology won't get implemented at some point in the future. There's of course also the newly available radar for checking blindspots in cars.
It's all bark and no bite. They're just pissed for getting called out for what most intelligent people already knew. That the wars are not going well and that W wasn't taking the war seriously at all. At this point any damage that's going to be done has been done, and this is mostly just about saving face.
Doesn't matter why he wants the information. As long as somebody is keeping track of it, somebody can get a hold of it for their own ends. It's a completely unacceptable situation where Google or somebody else can track you all over the net without your say so. It's one thing to monitor your email if you've got a gmail account, but quite another to keep tabs on other people that aren't so enmeshed.
In the US definitely not, but the UK has had ASBOs for quite a while, and they seem to think that it's appropriate for the government to clamp down on anti-social behavior, as does the Chinese government.
SpaceX doesn't have to convince politicians to give it funding without requiring pork. That's the big difference. Since the politicians insist on including strings you're going to see a significant mark up. And since nobody's opposed to pork that comes their way, it's not going to change.
To be honest, pretty much only an idiot develops for them. Especially given Apple's tendency to steal ideas out of the App store rendering the payware obsolete.
Indeed, when I did it 5 years ago, there was no complexity at all to the process. I'm not sure if you can port a number from a contract to a pay as you go plan, but between carriers is really no biggy whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the owners were the ones that let that happen. If I want to total my car on purpose, there is no crime involved unless I damage other people's property or try to claim insurance on it. Since it's my property I can damage it all I like without being criminally liable. Likewise, the passwords should've been changed by city employees prior to them being in the court documents, otherwise they should've requested that the judge have the records sealed until such a time as they could be changed.
It depends, if I had kept my keys when I quite my job, I would've almost certainly been arrested for grand theft keys. Given that those particular keys were worth several hundred grand. That's the cost of replacing them and damn near every single lock in the building. A process which would take weeks on a high rise. Theft is definitely a criminal matter, providing the work contract doesn't spell out your right to keep company property.
This isn't really limiting their choices, it's just requiring them to take a step to opt out if they like. Sort of like the move to automatically enrolling people in their companies 401k unless they opt out. Since most people do opt in or at least want to do it, doing so gives most people what they want without having to do any work. Those that don't want to have ample time to opt out if they choose to.
And sometimes it is the appropriate thing to do. Sane defaults dictate that sometimes the default be included and sometimes to be excluded.
Linux can do that because virtually all the software is free either pricewise or GPLed. In which case most of those people are thrilled to have somebody else picking up the tab on the distribution and advertising. In the Windows world, that's not really the case. Much of it is commercial software and the freeware and opensource stuff is so numerous that I doubt MS is interested in taking on the responsibility and cost of hosting those files.
You don't see the problem with that? The people that should be using it are the same ones that would likely get that wrong. Whereas the individuals that don't really need to use it would have very little trouble going into the preferences and disabling it.
Opt in isn't always the best choice, especially when the people that most need to opt in are the ones with the least ability to make an informed decision.
Um, from a 2nd amendment standpoint, if you're not in a well regulated militia you have precisely zero right to be armed. Practically speaking the UK has been getting more and more ridiculous and they do have a complete ban on firearms.
No you just thought it was a good idea because they chose your guy. It was an extremely blatant violation of the US constitution to do so. Specifically the twelfth amendment specifies what should be done when the electoral college fails to come to a result. Intervening to name a winner was the most extreme act of judicial activism I can think of. Ruling in favor of the guy who ultimately was shown to not have the votes was extremely poor judgment. Not to mention that the SCOTUS doesn't get to make non-precedence rulings.
Like how increasing your tax base by using eminent domain to seize private property would be consider as reasonable. Or how corporations have first amendment rights.
You'd have more credibility if you didn't take that pot shot at liberal arts students. It's arguably the most useful degree you can get. While it doesn't set you up for a specific field, it does give you the back ground thinking necessary to accomplish things. A quality of thinking that's sorely lacking in many graduates.
Umm, that activism thing didn't seem to bother W when he nominated his picks for the high court. There's been a pattern in recent years of pro-conservative judicial activism on issues from the 2000 Presidential election to the DC handgun ban to the Lilly Ledbetter ruling. It's asinine to suggest that somehow one person is going to dangerously tip the balance away from that.
Let me get this straight, the party that openly advances homophobia, islamaphobia and racism to get votes somehow is more respectful of the President? Sorry, I can't buy that. Given the amount of focus they've put on his birthplace, alleged link to Islam, I find it very hard to believe that race doesn't figure in prominently into it.
That's the UK, here in the US, anybody that's been charged gets named and shamed. I'm not sure that's right, in fact I'm pretty sure it's not, but it's the way we do things over here. From what I gather in the UK, minors aren't named even when convicted. I hope I'm not correct about that.
Actually, the FBI tried for an entire year to break into a suspect's Truecrypt encrypted volume. And failed to succeed at it, so the Mexican government had to let him off as there was no other evidence available. At least that's if my memory serves.
What you do is secure shred it. Torrents are tricky because they could add distribution on to possession, but as a general rule, if you're view pages via HTTP or FTP and it turns out to be child porn, all you have to do is shred the file. Do so immediately. If it isn't visible when they check the computer, assuming they do, they can't charge you for possession. In order for it to be possession it has to be accessible.
Granted that's not perfect, but it's not likely you'll be charged over a couple images that were immediately and unrecoverably deleted.
I know, and they also don't like it when the government tells them that they have to. Seat belts, motorcycle helmets and speed limits, for instance, contrary to some people's opinions are not civil rights issues. Now, if we knew that the idiot not doing it was the only one that would be affected, we could conceivably roll those laws back, but the reality is that other people end up being affected by such carelessness.
From personal experience, I'd have to say, don't walk anywhere. And if you do be sure to not cross streets and definitely don't assume that the drivers care about crosswalks.
At some point that technology will be available and work. I mean if Honda can include an airbag with some of their motorcycles Motorcycle airbag I doubt that this technology won't get implemented at some point in the future. There's of course also the newly available radar for checking blindspots in cars.
It's all bark and no bite. They're just pissed for getting called out for what most intelligent people already knew. That the wars are not going well and that W wasn't taking the war seriously at all. At this point any damage that's going to be done has been done, and this is mostly just about saving face.
Doesn't matter why he wants the information. As long as somebody is keeping track of it, somebody can get a hold of it for their own ends. It's a completely unacceptable situation where Google or somebody else can track you all over the net without your say so. It's one thing to monitor your email if you've got a gmail account, but quite another to keep tabs on other people that aren't so enmeshed.
In the US definitely not, but the UK has had ASBOs for quite a while, and they seem to think that it's appropriate for the government to clamp down on anti-social behavior, as does the Chinese government.
SpaceX doesn't have to convince politicians to give it funding without requiring pork. That's the big difference. Since the politicians insist on including strings you're going to see a significant mark up. And since nobody's opposed to pork that comes their way, it's not going to change.
To be honest, pretty much only an idiot develops for them. Especially given Apple's tendency to steal ideas out of the App store rendering the payware obsolete.
Three halves? I'm just itching to see their upcoming math game.
Right, and now both Google and Verizon have come out and denied having any discussions about prioritizing Google's traffic.
Indeed, when I did it 5 years ago, there was no complexity at all to the process. I'm not sure if you can port a number from a contract to a pay as you go plan, but between carriers is really no biggy whatsoever.