completely anti-First Amendment... they have a right to say what they want to say, no matter whether it's offensive, hate speech, politically incorrect, racist, or anything else Wrong. This is Facebook, not the government. There is no Constitutional guarantee that Facebook will allow you some kind of free speech, even if it's hateful.
More freaking importantly, the terms of these people's use of Facebook specifically indicate that the user agrees "not to use the Service or the Site to... upload, post, transmit, share, store or otherwise make available any content that we deem to be harmful, threatening, unlawful, defamatory, infringing, abusive, inflammatory, harassing, vulgar, obscene, fraudulent, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable."
So please, come off your anti-PC horse, quit cheapening my rights (against the government) by diluting them with fictional rights against private organizations and my own contracts, and let's agree that this isn't a free-speech issue.
Since March 19 of this year. Roughly 5 months.
90% of the time... they count updates on Windows Update for thinks like WMP and Internet Explorer, yet they specifically omit updates for things like Quicktime and Safari as being important. Which doesn't include this time, since I specifically noted how many updates there were for each category.
Look, I'm not trying to be a fanatic here. I've run Ubuntu since late last year, thanks largely to responses to an "Ask Slashdot" article I submitted. I ran Windows for years before that after growing up with Macs. And I appreciate the link - I hadn't read about that yet. You're right: it's b.s. when these sorts of things go ignored, and the Samba deficiency your link mentions had always bugged me.
But the issue I was responding to wasn't security-related. It was related to, basically, the number of times the user has to reboot. It was a narrow focus, and now I've had two ACs jump my ass with specious claims about what I said and lame guilt-by-association techniques all aided by a disingenuous representation of my claims.
The only reason Apple has fewer updates is that they don't bother to fix things like security vulnerabilities... Maybe, but not necessarily. One big consolidated patch would take away your ammo and leave me with mine, mostly because you changed the subject.
Quicktime updates don't count! But Windows Media Player patches do! Hang on. What? I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, and I wasn't going to complain about being modded -1 Flamebait, since that's useless and I can afford the loss, but this is pretty intolerable. I never claimed that people shouldn't update apps.
I meant - and I stand by this - that attacking Apple's OS for the volume of fixes and upgrades that come down the Software Update wire isn't entirely fair, since Software Update also updates applications. By the same token, I wouldn't make the claim that Microsoft had to update Windows far more than Apple did OS X by counting up all the Windows+WMP upgrades/fixes and comparing them to Apple's OS-only fixes.
What I would do, however, is look at the facts. Here they are:
On my Mac, I have 4 OS-specific updates, 4 updates each for iTunes and QuickTime, and 3 updates for Java. That makes 15 total updates, 8 of which are for "applications" - and I'll lump Java frameworks into the OS for conciseness and to play fair, since Windows' tool doesn't make it obvious where those are.
On my fiance's XP laptop, I count 20 OS-specific updates, 5 Windows malware removal tool updates, 3 IE updates, and 2 Outlook updates. That makes 32 total updates, and even if I count the malware tool, IE, and Outlook as separate applications (generous, given Microsoft's claims about IE), Microsoft is at 20 OS updates.
That puts Microsoft way ahead of Apple in terms of sheer volume. And when I open WMP it tells me I have updates to add, so I don't think they're included.
Now, all of that aside, I'm perfectly happy that Microsoft updates their products. I'd rather have them do 32 updates in the last 6 months than none at all. As you rudely pointed out, a vulnerability is a vulnerability. But I was responding to parent's implication that Apple updates too much. I didn't understand the basis for the claim then, and now that I've looked at the hard numbers, I still don't.
Apple has released 5x the amount of updates and security fixes in the past few months as Windows XP, Vista, and Linux combined. Nice troll. A very large number of those updates and fixes are for software like QuickTime and iTunes. So you're not comparing apples to apples... ahem... so to speak.
Not to fanboi, but having run XP for years before switching to Linux and a Mac, I find the actual OS updates for OS X no more time-consuming or frustrating than those for other platforms. If you want to make an actual comparison, then let's talk about app updates as well as OS updates.
Someone already said to spot check, and that's important. But you also have the ability to have a far more accurate recount in the case of a close election.
If every voter has verified that the paper version of his/her ballot is correct, then a hand recount is a nearly foolproof way to discern the will of the voters. Of course, the physical security of the ballots remains a concern, but that problem's always been around.
Could it be that the RIAA is being sued by its hosting provider? Or perhaps the sue-happy organizaiton is suing its provider? ... Or maybe they just wanted a more secure hosting platform located with a provider who has experience with member-oriented organizations. There's always that possibility.
Actually, there was a significant push to get the Legislature to get them to put other appliances in as well:
"[Activists] were pushing for a provision to require television manufacturers selling products in Texas to take back and recycle customers' old televisions, to be added to... Republican Dennis Bonnen's widely popular House Bill 2714, and its identical Senate companion, Kirk Watson's Senate Bill 1324, which establish statewide take-back standards for computers, monitors, and laptops, at the behest of already-recycling computer makers Dell and Hewlett-Packard. E-waste crusaders Texas Campaign for the Environment led the charge to include TVs in the e-recycling bills; TCE director Robin Schneider accused Bonnen, under pressure from manufacturers, of threatening to kill the original bill if his colleagues amended it. Schneider said four states have passed TV-inclusive take-back laws so far, and emphasized the urgency of a TV take-back measure as the approaching advent of digital TV is expected to make many old sets obsolete." [emphasis mine]
I emphasized the bit about HP and Dell because it highlights (or at least suggests) two things:
Dell and HP didn't just submit legislation that Bonnen and Watson modeled their bills after. I suspect, though I don't know, that they were strong backers of the bill. I'll clap and cheer for anything environmentally sound - especially in this state - but let's not forget that businesses will be businesses. You can bet there's an ulterior motive. It probably starts with 'p' and ends with "r-o-f-i-t."
Given the rumors swirling around about the pressure Bonnen was under, and given point #1, it's difficult to think seriously that TCE had a fighting chance of getting other appliances attached to the bill. The bill's major corporate sponsors (who surely know that televisions pose a significant risk to the environment) were really only interested in what their competitors were doing. Which, sadly, represents a missed opportunity, since the Lege won't be reconvening until 2009.
Still, of course, this is probably a Good Thing(tm). It's not a perfect solution, but it's a damn sight better than what we had at the start of the session.
Your point about the viability of photographs as evidence for other things is well-taken. But I did RTFA - before it was on/.'s front page - and there are important other goals in this process. Forgive my long-windedness here, but hopefully it will clarify some of those.
You say you're not familiar with the Sudanese conflict, but you're right that there is more to the story. In particular, the conflict in Darfur is just the latest episode in a long, sad story of civil war and political stupidity, to put it nicely. The net result there is that the Sudanese government is acting largely with impunity in Darfur, as the African Union has a mere 7,000 troops in the region and the EU and UN are sitting on their thumbs.
One thing Nelson and the Amnesty/AAAS program in general are trying to do by releasing these photographs is let the Sudanese militias and government know that they are being watched. They're coupling the technological aspect with info from the ground.
Independent researchers, Amnesty workers, and refugees provide stories to go with the pictures, which helps corroborate the theory that it was violence that caused the fires. But they're also providing tips to the Amnesty/AAAS people that certain villages in Sudan might be next in advance. From my reading of TFA, I think they have two goals with these pictures: the first is that they want to let the Sudanese government know that they have their eye on those sites that appear to be at risk, and the second is that they want to be able to immediately commission new photos of those regions when word comes down that it has been attacked. Then their before/after photos are fresher, more reliable.
Second, these guys are not shy about saying they want to drum up support for the "Save Darfur" movement. They figure, probably correctly, that attaching photographs of villages burnt to a crisp to stories from refugees and survivors will strike a chord in the general population. So some of your comments are on-target, but they're already admitted.
Third, these photos provide information about regions the Sudanese government and militias have blocked off. TFA talks about one region no one has gotten into in years, not even Oxfam or the Red Cross. If the militias won't let them in, there's a good chance things are really bad there. These photos could provide meaningful intelligence about the situation on the ground.
Finally, let me reiterate what someone else said, though not so nicely: go find out more about Darfur. It's really a terrible story, but you're right that the media's depiction is one-sided. It really ignores the larger historical context and the political machinations that have made the situation what it is today. Harper's had a good write-up on it a year ago or so, and I'm sure there are myriad other resources. Cheers.
I used to be a big Star Trek geek when I was in high school (I'm happily married now, FWIW, because I stopped following Star Trek in college). There, fixed that for you.;-)
A little clicking around in the GP's link renders the following: "If it's MPL *only*, you'll have to reject if it's targetted for main. If, like firefox and friends, it's multi-licensed, then it's fine." Also, this: "It is, in fact, not distributable as an executable by Debian."
I'm not involved in Debian, but that's a pretty resounding set of rejections. If you read the whole thread (here, find "MPL") you can see one or two dissenting opinions, but the "reject" option does seem to be the consensus view. And since BugZilla is MPL-only, it looks like distributing it as a binary will not be an option for Debian maintainers.
One thing I'm not sure about is whether Debian can go ahead and distribute the source. This would be a PITA for developers, but it's better than nothing.
I don't have a Thunderbird installation handy, but things have changed, IIRC. On my XP box, using Thunderbird, I used multiple accounts, and I'm pretty anal about using the proper SMTP server for each account. You should be able to set each account to use a different SMTP server.
Of course, now I'm on a Mac and using Mail.app, or else I'd check specifically for you.
I was headed in a different direction, but I agree with your sentiment - if they want qualified teachers, they should act like it. In my experience, anyone who gets halfway through a math degree is going to be inundated with research and job opportunities before they graduate, so unless they're already headed toward teaching, they won't be convinced to go that way. The fact that virtually every school board in the nation misses this point is indicative of a much larger problem.
I'm pretty sure this is a key factor. As someone who's studied math and various liberal arts and as a former student in a teacher-certification curriculum, I can attest to the fact that the rigmarole educators are put through today is a major turnoff.
In the end, I chose to pursue advanced degrees and deal with the bullshit academia has to offer rather than teach at a high school with bored students, apathetic parents, and hostile or incompetent administrators* from the principal all the way to the state's education officials. I'd be shocked if I'm in the minority.
* This is clearly a generalization - there are amazing students, parents, and administrators in the world - but I think the phenomenon is sufficiently dispersed to allow some criticism of the system.
No editor or group of editors has a stake in the integrity of Wikipedia I think you're just wrong here. There are a lot of enthusiastic editors at Wikipedia that would take issue with your assertion. Moreover, your reasoning could be used to say that no contributor or group of contributors has a stake in the integrity of Linux - a conclusion that's blatantly false.
With Wikipedia, as with other projects, the integrity of the part is essentially useless without the integrity of the whole. The communal management system helps maintain the latter.
Actually, I want to retain copies of emails sent from other GMail users in my local GMail Inbox. Your suggestion would put them all in my Sent folder, I believe. So my filter just checks for my address specifically and moves those emails.
Thunderbird can easily check mail from multiple accounts.
A side note to this: because of the way GMail does POP, any time you send an email from the web interface to GMail, Thunderbird will download it to your Inbox. I've grown to expect this and have filters set up to move these emails to appropriate folders, but it's something users should be aware of before migrating from webmail to Thunderbird using GMail. If anyone knows of a solution, it'd be nice to see here.
GMail does retain copies of everything on their servers, though, which makes me a happy user. Far too many times I've been on-campus without my laptop and needed something from that account.
theft of property (whether publicly or privately owned) by their child
I guess this is supposed to be the relevant portion for you, and I applaud your having taken the time to look around. But the fact is that copyright infringement is generally a civil matter. I think the code you quoted here does indicate a slant toward holding guardians responsible for children's deeds, so I wouldn't be surprised if at least some jurisdictions held them responsible.
It'd be nice if certain people would educate and inform instead of insulting and resorting to a stamp-your-feet "No it's not!" sort of response.
Simple: because there have been a number of documented problems involving electronic voting in the last 3 election cycles.
In 2000, everyone (not just the Dems - don't be a tool) supported electronic voting because it looked like the easiest way to avoid another Florida. But then it turned out that the machines government officials latched onto are worse than bad.
Is it so wrong for concerned citizens to want a non-disenfranchising electoral system with both accessibility and accountability?
(Note: In the time between my loading and clicking to reply here, you've gotten modded Flamebait, but you have a legitimate and common point of view, so I'll engage.)
Ahh, but so far all the terrorists have been Muslim.
I hear what you're saying, which - assuming good faith and a lack of racism - appears to be something about the balance between the need for security and the practical benefits derived from identifying the ethnic/cultural makeup of the latest group of crazies. But to simply claim that we "wouldn't have this problem" if it weren't for this group of people is preposterous. In 1996, if we were to profile as seriously as people are suggesting today, half the/. readership would be pulled aside for frisking. The last 20 years or so have shown us a number of people, born and raised in the heartland, who are just off-the-rocker enough to tell us what they think in violent ways.
Open societies are going to have these problems. It sucks, but unless you're willing to live in a locked down society, we have to find a way to stop it that doesn't involve discrimination against every subculture that has a few overzealous members. (Yes, a few. I remind you that Islam has somewhere between 900M and 1.5B members today, and the people who commit atrocities in its name represent a small segment.)
And while we're at it, why not convict all those gamers of multiple counts of murder? They've killed so many people online, it's not even funny. Of course, we'd have some interesting questions of law. Is killing a troll as bad as killing a human?
This is one of the most insightful comments in this story. Not because murder is a real issue in MMOs, but because the government will really have to answer these questions at some point. You disagree with me and think that MMOGs are not worth the time right now, and that's fine. But eventually something will come up that has real-world value to you, me, and everyone else. The issue then will be how to handle crimes committed in these spaces. My guess is that it will have multiple stages.
First, incidents of serious theft will become more common as people figure out they can score big with relatively little consequences. RL time and money spent on acquiring currency or items will be invalidated by these acts. Victims will get pissed. Then those victims will (finally) decide to pursue legal action. A lawyer will eventually take the case, and after a period of time involving subpoenas and warrants, someone will get hauled before the court.
Here's where it gets interesting: the courts have to decide whether the alleged theft is illegal under current law. I'm guessing that a whole lot of judges are going to laugh these things off, and only a few will buy in - judges haven't proven terribly tech-savvy up until now, and there's no reason to think they will any time in the next 20 years or so. Cases might be relatively easy to win if the judge will allow them to go forward, since evidence will ordinarily involve usernames, passwords, IP logs, and often direct admissions in-game that the theft has been committed. So you'll end up with a whole lot of case law both for and against including these things as crimes.
What next? At some point, there will be petitions and lobbying asking Congress (or state legislatures) to clarify the law. There will be a battle over exclusion or inclusion, and politicians will have to make the call. Judging by their past performance, including many dismal failures, my hopes are not high.
Slashdot Mirror
More freaking importantly, the terms of these people's use of Facebook specifically indicate that the user agrees "not to use the Service or the Site to
So please, come off your anti-PC horse, quit cheapening my rights (against the government) by diluting them with fictional rights against private organizations and my own contracts, and let's agree that this isn't a free-speech issue.
Ha! That's good. Of course, not long ago, MIT students managed to boost a 3-ton cannon from CalTech using similar methods.
Look, I'm not trying to be a fanatic here. I've run Ubuntu since late last year, thanks largely to responses to an "Ask Slashdot" article I submitted. I ran Windows for years before that after growing up with Macs. And I appreciate the link - I hadn't read about that yet. You're right: it's b.s. when these sorts of things go ignored, and the Samba deficiency your link mentions had always bugged me.
But the issue I was responding to wasn't security-related. It was related to, basically, the number of times the user has to reboot. It was a narrow focus, and now I've had two ACs jump my ass with specious claims about what I said and lame guilt-by-association techniques all aided by a disingenuous representation of my claims. The only reason Apple has fewer updates is that they don't bother to fix things like security vulnerabilities
I meant - and I stand by this - that attacking Apple's OS for the volume of fixes and upgrades that come down the Software Update wire isn't entirely fair, since Software Update also updates applications. By the same token, I wouldn't make the claim that Microsoft had to update Windows far more than Apple did OS X by counting up all the Windows+WMP upgrades/fixes and comparing them to Apple's OS-only fixes.
What I would do, however, is look at the facts. Here they are:
On my Mac, I have 4 OS-specific updates, 4 updates each for iTunes and QuickTime, and 3 updates for Java. That makes 15 total updates, 8 of which are for "applications" - and I'll lump Java frameworks into the OS for conciseness and to play fair, since Windows' tool doesn't make it obvious where those are.
On my fiance's XP laptop, I count 20 OS-specific updates, 5 Windows malware removal tool updates, 3 IE updates, and 2 Outlook updates. That makes 32 total updates, and even if I count the malware tool, IE, and Outlook as separate applications (generous, given Microsoft's claims about IE), Microsoft is at 20 OS updates.
That puts Microsoft way ahead of Apple in terms of sheer volume. And when I open WMP it tells me I have updates to add, so I don't think they're included.
Now, all of that aside, I'm perfectly happy that Microsoft updates their products. I'd rather have them do 32 updates in the last 6 months than none at all. As you rudely pointed out, a vulnerability is a vulnerability. But I was responding to parent's implication that Apple updates too much. I didn't understand the basis for the claim then, and now that I've looked at the hard numbers, I still don't.
Not to fanboi, but having run XP for years before switching to Linux and a Mac, I find the actual OS updates for OS X no more time-consuming or frustrating than those for other platforms. If you want to make an actual comparison, then let's talk about app updates as well as OS updates.
Someone already said to spot check, and that's important. But you also have the ability to have a far more accurate recount in the case of a close election.
If every voter has verified that the paper version of his/her ballot is correct, then a hand recount is a nearly foolproof way to discern the will of the voters. Of course, the physical security of the ballots remains a concern, but that problem's always been around.
"[Activists] were pushing for a provision to require television manufacturers selling products in Texas to take back and recycle customers' old televisions, to be added to
I emphasized the bit about HP and Dell because it highlights (or at least suggests) two things:
- Dell and HP didn't just submit legislation that Bonnen and Watson modeled their bills after. I suspect, though I don't know, that they were strong backers of the bill. I'll clap and cheer for anything environmentally sound - especially in this state - but let's not forget that businesses will be businesses. You can bet there's an ulterior motive. It probably starts with 'p' and ends with "r-o-f-i-t."
- Given the rumors swirling around about the pressure Bonnen was under, and given point #1, it's difficult to think seriously that TCE had a fighting chance of getting other appliances attached to the bill. The bill's major corporate sponsors (who surely know that televisions pose a significant risk to the environment) were really only interested in what their competitors were doing. Which, sadly, represents a missed opportunity, since the Lege won't be reconvening until 2009.
Still, of course, this is probably a Good Thing(tm). It's not a perfect solution, but it's a damn sight better than what we had at the start of the session.Your point about the viability of photographs as evidence for other things is well-taken. But I did RTFA - before it was on /.'s front page - and there are important other goals in this process. Forgive my long-windedness here, but hopefully it will clarify some of those.
You say you're not familiar with the Sudanese conflict, but you're right that there is more to the story. In particular, the conflict in Darfur is just the latest episode in a long, sad story of civil war and political stupidity, to put it nicely. The net result there is that the Sudanese government is acting largely with impunity in Darfur, as the African Union has a mere 7,000 troops in the region and the EU and UN are sitting on their thumbs.
One thing Nelson and the Amnesty/AAAS program in general are trying to do by releasing these photographs is let the Sudanese militias and government know that they are being watched. They're coupling the technological aspect with info from the ground.
Independent researchers, Amnesty workers, and refugees provide stories to go with the pictures, which helps corroborate the theory that it was violence that caused the fires. But they're also providing tips to the Amnesty/AAAS people that certain villages in Sudan might be next in advance. From my reading of TFA, I think they have two goals with these pictures: the first is that they want to let the Sudanese government know that they have their eye on those sites that appear to be at risk, and the second is that they want to be able to immediately commission new photos of those regions when word comes down that it has been attacked. Then their before/after photos are fresher, more reliable.
Second, these guys are not shy about saying they want to drum up support for the "Save Darfur" movement. They figure, probably correctly, that attaching photographs of villages burnt to a crisp to stories from refugees and survivors will strike a chord in the general population. So some of your comments are on-target, but they're already admitted.
Third, these photos provide information about regions the Sudanese government and militias have blocked off. TFA talks about one region no one has gotten into in years, not even Oxfam or the Red Cross. If the militias won't let them in, there's a good chance things are really bad there. These photos could provide meaningful intelligence about the situation on the ground.
Finally, let me reiterate what someone else said, though not so nicely: go find out more about Darfur. It's really a terrible story, but you're right that the media's depiction is one-sided. It really ignores the larger historical context and the political machinations that have made the situation what it is today. Harper's had a good write-up on it a year ago or so, and I'm sure there are myriad other resources. Cheers.
Is it just me, or does the sight of Jack Thompson accusing others of PR stunts set one all a-giggle?
This man can't be serious.
A little clicking around in the GP's link renders the following: "If it's MPL *only*, you'll have to reject if it's targetted for main. If, like firefox and friends, it's multi-licensed, then it's fine." Also, this: "It is, in fact, not distributable as an executable by Debian."
I'm not involved in Debian, but that's a pretty resounding set of rejections. If you read the whole thread (here, find "MPL") you can see one or two dissenting opinions, but the "reject" option does seem to be the consensus view. And since BugZilla is MPL-only, it looks like distributing it as a binary will not be an option for Debian maintainers.
One thing I'm not sure about is whether Debian can go ahead and distribute the source. This would be a PITA for developers, but it's better than nothing.
I don't have a Thunderbird installation handy, but things have changed, IIRC. On my XP box, using Thunderbird, I used multiple accounts, and I'm pretty anal about using the proper SMTP server for each account. You should be able to set each account to use a different SMTP server. Of course, now I'm on a Mac and using Mail.app, or else I'd check specifically for you.
Too bad I used all my mod points yesterday. You took the words right out of my ... fingers.
Cheers from Austin. Wrong school, though. ;-)
I was headed in a different direction, but I agree with your sentiment - if they want qualified teachers, they should act like it. In my experience, anyone who gets halfway through a math degree is going to be inundated with research and job opportunities before they graduate, so unless they're already headed toward teaching, they won't be convinced to go that way. The fact that virtually every school board in the nation misses this point is indicative of a much larger problem.
I'm pretty sure this is a key factor. As someone who's studied math and various liberal arts and as a former student in a teacher-certification curriculum, I can attest to the fact that the rigmarole educators are put through today is a major turnoff.
In the end, I chose to pursue advanced degrees and deal with the bullshit academia has to offer rather than teach at a high school with bored students, apathetic parents, and hostile or incompetent administrators* from the principal all the way to the state's education officials. I'd be shocked if I'm in the minority.
* This is clearly a generalization - there are amazing students, parents, and administrators in the world - but I think the phenomenon is sufficiently dispersed to allow some criticism of the system.
With Wikipedia, as with other projects, the integrity of the part is essentially useless without the integrity of the whole. The communal management system helps maintain the latter.
Actually, I want to retain copies of emails sent from other GMail users in my local GMail Inbox. Your suggestion would put them all in my Sent folder, I believe. So my filter just checks for my address specifically and moves those emails.
Thunderbird can easily check mail from multiple accounts.
A side note to this: because of the way GMail does POP, any time you send an email from the web interface to GMail, Thunderbird will download it to your Inbox. I've grown to expect this and have filters set up to move these emails to appropriate folders, but it's something users should be aware of before migrating from webmail to Thunderbird using GMail. If anyone knows of a solution, it'd be nice to see here.
GMail does retain copies of everything on their servers, though, which makes me a happy user. Far too many times I've been on-campus without my laptop and needed something from that account.
Mod parent up. There's greater explanation in the article linked than in any comment heretofore. Thank you, product byproduct.
theft of property (whether publicly or privately owned) by their child
I guess this is supposed to be the relevant portion for you, and I applaud your having taken the time to look around. But the fact is that copyright infringement is generally a civil matter. I think the code you quoted here does indicate a slant toward holding guardians responsible for children's deeds, so I wouldn't be surprised if at least some jurisdictions held them responsible.
It'd be nice if certain people would educate and inform instead of insulting and resorting to a stamp-your-feet "No it's not!" sort of response.
Why the sudden 180?
Simple: because there have been a number of documented problems involving electronic voting in the last 3 election cycles.
In 2000, everyone (not just the Dems - don't be a tool) supported electronic voting because it looked like the easiest way to avoid another Florida. But then it turned out that the machines government officials latched onto are worse than bad.
Is it so wrong for concerned citizens to want a non-disenfranchising electoral system with both accessibility and accountability?
(Note: In the time between my loading and clicking to reply here, you've gotten modded Flamebait, but you have a legitimate and common point of view, so I'll engage.)
/. readership would be pulled aside for frisking. The last 20 years or so have shown us a number of people, born and raised in the heartland, who are just off-the-rocker enough to tell us what they think in violent ways.
Ahh, but so far all the terrorists have been Muslim.
Ah, so this and this don't count?
I hear what you're saying, which - assuming good faith and a lack of racism - appears to be something about the balance between the need for security and the practical benefits derived from identifying the ethnic/cultural makeup of the latest group of crazies. But to simply claim that we "wouldn't have this problem" if it weren't for this group of people is preposterous. In 1996, if we were to profile as seriously as people are suggesting today, half the
Open societies are going to have these problems. It sucks, but unless you're willing to live in a locked down society, we have to find a way to stop it that doesn't involve discrimination against every subculture that has a few overzealous members. (Yes, a few. I remind you that Islam has somewhere between 900M and 1.5B members today, and the people who commit atrocities in its name represent a small segment.)
And while we're at it, why not convict all those gamers of multiple counts of murder? They've killed so many people online, it's not even funny. Of course, we'd have some interesting questions of law. Is killing a troll as bad as killing a human?
This is one of the most insightful comments in this story. Not because murder is a real issue in MMOs, but because the government will really have to answer these questions at some point. You disagree with me and think that MMOGs are not worth the time right now, and that's fine. But eventually something will come up that has real-world value to you, me, and everyone else. The issue then will be how to handle crimes committed in these spaces. My guess is that it will have multiple stages.
First, incidents of serious theft will become more common as people figure out they can score big with relatively little consequences. RL time and money spent on acquiring currency or items will be invalidated by these acts. Victims will get pissed. Then those victims will (finally) decide to pursue legal action. A lawyer will eventually take the case, and after a period of time involving subpoenas and warrants, someone will get hauled before the court.
Here's where it gets interesting: the courts have to decide whether the alleged theft is illegal under current law. I'm guessing that a whole lot of judges are going to laugh these things off, and only a few will buy in - judges haven't proven terribly tech-savvy up until now, and there's no reason to think they will any time in the next 20 years or so. Cases might be relatively easy to win if the judge will allow them to go forward, since evidence will ordinarily involve usernames, passwords, IP logs, and often direct admissions in-game that the theft has been committed. So you'll end up with a whole lot of case law both for and against including these things as crimes.
What next? At some point, there will be petitions and lobbying asking Congress (or state legislatures) to clarify the law. There will be a battle over exclusion or inclusion, and politicians will have to make the call. Judging by their past performance, including many dismal failures, my hopes are not high.
Was he convicted?
Yes. But I see no reason for Ohio citizens to be punished now for Mr. Timmendequas's crimes.