Hey, it's the minimum required to run. No one said it would be pretty, or particularly useful, only that it would run.
Here's What You Need to Use Windows XP Professional
PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system); Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended
128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space
Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
CD-ROM or DVD drive
Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
I agree completely. But that still doesn't explain the need to have your Wifi running wide open. Get their MAC addresses and add them to the allowed list, or use encryption and give them the keys. Or, have everyone chip in, buy a switch and wire up the entire building. Running a wide open Wifi is in no way necessary to help you to accomplish your stated goal.
I know, and really I was just trying to play devil's advocate with your own words to point out the converse of what you said. Close Encounters was good also, but I think there were far fewer effects than in Star Wars. Great music in both films (Thanks John Williams!)
P.S. DK rocks! Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables was their best IMHO.
Hey, creative interpretations are what gets laws changed! In any case every court case is merely someone's interpretation of the law. That is why I always laugh when Supreme Court nominations come up and the big concern is whether or not they will "govern according to established law" or try to offer their interpretation.
Well, I guess that means my friend was extremely lucky that the prosecutors in his case didn't know the law as good as you.
So according to you, cops can put down "stolen bike" on the search warrant, and then search the inside of your couch, desk drawers, and a small locked box and use anything they find as evidence?? I could see if the also found a stolen stereo (or other related items) and you are suspected of burglary. But finding completely unrelated evidence and being able to use it? What if they decided to look on your computer and find illegal software? Could they use that as evidence if they were looking for a physical object?
"More likely he was not convicted because the cops took the pot home and smoked it."
Not only was he not convicted, he was never even charged. The stupid sheriffs serving the warrant though they had the French Connection, but the actual drug officer and prosecutors knew it would never stand up in court, so they didn't even bother.
"If you're searching for a piano and you find a bag of coke sitting in plain sight on a coffee table it is admissible evidence of drug possession."
If the coke was in plain sight from pulic property and not once they got inside, yep they could bust you for it. However if the search didn't turn up the stolen piano, it does open the door to trying to have the whole thing thrown out. I wouldn't rely on it, but I would certainly explore the possibility.
"When they execute their warrant do you really think they could take the body and weapon but not use them as evidence in court since they were "illegally" discovered?"
I am guessing in the case of a capital crime, they would try to invoke the "good faith" rule a little harder than in a simple non-felony drug case.
In any case these are merely my interpretations of the law, and IANAL.
Who is claiming it is anything but entertainment? And who cares? If it is entertaing it is entertaining. I agree it isn't "hard SciFi" but do we really need to get caught up in labels? Oh wait, this is Slashdot.
It's fine to be a hater on some levels but at some other point you have to turn around and understand that just because something isn't important to you doesn't mean it wasn't the pinnacle of achievement.
Wrong. You have obviously never seen a search warrant before. They are not a generic search "free pass" for the cops. It must state specifically what they are looking for, and the location.
Look here for a quick example noting page two the Attachment A part.
Or here for the Duke Lacrosse search warrant. Notice the "description of items being seized" section.
Or here if you want to see the search warrnat for the Virgina Tech shooter. Notice the first blank is where they fill in the location, and the second blank under "for the follwing property,objects, and/or persons".
To be honest, I wouldn't take legal advice from anyone but your own attorney - you, me, or any other Slashdotters included.
If you give consent to search, they would not need a warrant and ANYTHING they find can be used. But without consent, only items listed on the search warrant can be legally seized. The only way cops can use evididence obtained that was not listed on a search warrant is -
1) you give consent to search
2) investigatory stop: when there is reasonable suspicion that a crime is in progress or is about to occur
3) search incident to arrest: the person was validly arrested and the search was reasonably conducted.
4) exigent circumstances : if officers have reason to believe that evidence is being destroyed, or that someone is injured or otherwise in need of assistance
And this isn't all hypothetical. I know someone who had a crop of marijuana and his growing equipment seized because the cops showed up searching for a felon with an arrest warrant with his address listed. (felon had never been there, probably gave a fake address at some point) Because they were specifically looking for the felon and found the plants by accident, they were unable to charge for the marijuana. Needless to say my friend didn't get any of the equipment or pot back. If you have a firsthand experience that contradicts this, I'd love to hear it.
If the cops could use anything they find as evidence with a search warrant, why must they list the items they are specifically searching for beforehand?? You need to read up on the 4th ammendment especially the concept of "exclusinary rule" and the Katz vs. United Staes case dealing with "reasonable expectation of privacy".
Also note that I specifically stated "most likely could not be charged", so there is still a chance you could be charged if special circumstances exist.
You would be an accessory if you provided the phone. So no, not guilty of said offense, but guilty of not taking reasonable steps so it wouldn't happen.
If the cops have a search warrant for child porn, and they find pot plants, they will seize the plants and growing equimpment, but most likely will not be able to charge them with any crimes related to the pot. In order to legally seize property, cops need to have the items they are specifically looking for on a search warrant. A search warrant isn't a "blank check" that can be used to search for anything. If you actually suspected your neighbor of growing pot and wanted to get them busted, the easist way would be an anonymous phone tip with you lying and saying you have observed the plants firsthand yourself.
Yep, mention their "Cup of Joe and Child Porn" special to receive 50 cents off your latte.
Realistically though, I would sit OUTSIDE of Starbucks and use their connection. Retail stores often have video cameras that could be used to see who was in the store at the time of the criminal activity. Oh, and use one of these to get even further away to avoid outside surveillance cameras.
If you responsibly set up your Wifi so it isn't wide open, there isn't an issue to begin with. If you leave it open, then the irresponsibility of others IS passed along to you for allowing it. Open Wifi is asking for trouble, and there is only a limited need for it. Most open Wifi spots are due to laziness or ignorance. Can you please explain the pressing need to have open, unrestricted, unlogged Wifi??
If you mounted a phone on the outside of your house and put a "FREE USE" sign over it, would you be pissed when you got the long distance bill??
How did this not get modded offtopic? This post has absolutely nothing to do with open WAPs and is an intentionally inflamatory comment, posted no doubt with the hopes that others will respond with similarly inflamatory comments.
So if I put a bunch of loaded guns in my house, unlocked and opened the door, and put a huge banner in my yard that said "FREE LOADED GUNS IN UNLOCKED HOUSE", I should be surprised (and not liable) when someone comes in and starts shooting them??
If you want to have an open Wifi, you had better be ready to deal with the fact that- 1) People will abuse it 2) Ultimately you are responsible for what happens over your connection.
Hopefully the most of the bugs will be worked out by the the time SP1 comes out. Personally, except for pure test beds, I always wait until the first SP comes out to install any OS. I remember fighting with a couple Macs when the first version of OS X came out. Same with Windows Server 2003. But i wouldn't completely write Vista off yet, especially in your case with a complex setup, the drivers may take a bit to all get working in unison.
Vista != Aero. Implying that all Vista comprises is a GUI is like saying KDE = Linux kernel. Actually DX10 was one of their big selling points, looks like they will have to find something else to taut out now...
For god sakes it's a computer, not a lifestyle. Real "Mac users" aren't changing the world, they are just plunking away at the keyboard like the rest of the world.
since you seem to like the dictionary try this one-
Main Entry: condescend
Pronunciation: "kän-di-'send
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French condescendre, from Late Latin condescendere, from Latin com- + descendere to descend
1 a : to descend to a less formal or dignified level
2 : to assume an air of superiority
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, it's the minimum required to run. No one said it would be pretty, or particularly useful, only that it would run.
s ysreqs.mspx
Here's What You Need to Use Windows XP Professional
PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system); Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended
128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space
Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
CD-ROM or DVD drive
Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/
I have actually run XP on a PII 450 with 128 MB of RAM and it did run fine.
I agree completely. But that still doesn't explain the need to have your Wifi running wide open. Get their MAC addresses and add them to the allowed list, or use encryption and give them the keys. Or, have everyone chip in, buy a switch and wire up the entire building. Running a wide open Wifi is in no way necessary to help you to accomplish your stated goal.
I know, and really I was just trying to play devil's advocate with your own words to point out the converse of what you said. Close Encounters was good also, but I think there were far fewer effects than in Star Wars. Great music in both films (Thanks John Williams!)
P.S. DK rocks! Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables was their best IMHO.
Hey, creative interpretations are what gets laws changed! In any case every court case is merely someone's interpretation of the law. That is why I always laugh when Supreme Court nominations come up and the big concern is whether or not they will "govern according to established law" or try to offer their interpretation.
Well, I guess that means my friend was extremely lucky that the prosecutors in his case didn't know the law as good as you.
So according to you, cops can put down "stolen bike" on the search warrant, and then search the inside of your couch, desk drawers, and a small locked box and use anything they find as evidence?? I could see if the also found a stolen stereo (or other related items) and you are suspected of burglary. But finding completely unrelated evidence and being able to use it? What if they decided to look on your computer and find illegal software? Could they use that as evidence if they were looking for a physical object?
"More likely he was not convicted because the cops took the pot home and smoked it."
Not only was he not convicted, he was never even charged. The stupid sheriffs serving the warrant though they had the French Connection, but the actual drug officer and prosecutors knew it would never stand up in court, so they didn't even bother.
"If you're searching for a piano and you find a bag of coke sitting in plain sight on a coffee table it is admissible evidence of drug possession."
If the coke was in plain sight from pulic property and not once they got inside, yep they could bust you for it. However if the search didn't turn up the stolen piano, it does open the door to trying to have the whole thing thrown out. I wouldn't rely on it, but I would certainly explore the possibility.
"When they execute their warrant do you really think they could take the body and weapon but not use them as evidence in court since they were "illegally" discovered?"
I am guessing in the case of a capital crime, they would try to invoke the "good faith" rule a little harder than in a simple non-felony drug case.
In any case these are merely my interpretations of the law, and IANAL.
"Apple-users and -developers exclusively use the proprietary Elitistnet"
Shhhh, you aren't supposed to tell non-Mac users of it existence!!
"Just look at last weeks poll on worst scifi sequels"
Could you remove the poll from your ass, so I can look at it?
Who is claiming it is anything but entertainment? And who cares? If it is entertaing it is entertaining. I agree it isn't "hard SciFi" but do we really need to get caught up in labels? Oh wait, this is Slashdot.
labels:haha, yes, no, fud
It's fine to be a hater on some levels but at some other point you have to turn around and understand that just because something isn't important to you doesn't mean it wasn't the pinnacle of achievement.
Wrong. You have obviously never seen a search warrant before. They are not a generic search "free pass" for the cops. It must state specifically what they are looking for, and the location.
Look here for a quick example noting page two the Attachment A part.
Or here for the Duke Lacrosse search warrant. Notice the "description of items being seized" section.
Or here if you want to see the search warrnat for the Virgina Tech shooter. Notice the first blank is where they fill in the location, and the second blank under "for the follwing property,objects, and/or persons".
To be honest, I wouldn't take legal advice from anyone but your own attorney - you, me, or any other Slashdotters included.
If you give consent to search, they would not need a warrant and ANYTHING they find can be used. But without consent, only items listed on the search warrant can be legally seized. The only way cops can use evididence obtained that was not listed on a search warrant is -
1) you give consent to search
2) investigatory stop: when there is reasonable suspicion that a crime is in progress or is about to occur
3) search incident to arrest: the person was validly arrested and the search was reasonably conducted.
4) exigent circumstances : if officers have reason to believe that evidence is being destroyed, or that someone is injured or otherwise in need of assistance
And this isn't all hypothetical. I know someone who had a crop of marijuana and his growing equipment seized because the cops showed up searching for a felon with an arrest warrant with his address listed. (felon had never been there, probably gave a fake address at some point) Because they were specifically looking for the felon and found the plants by accident, they were unable to charge for the marijuana. Needless to say my friend didn't get any of the equipment or pot back. If you have a firsthand experience that contradicts this, I'd love to hear it.
If the cops could use anything they find as evidence with a search warrant, why must they list the items they are specifically searching for beforehand?? You need to read up on the 4th ammendment especially the concept of "exclusinary rule" and the Katz vs. United Staes case dealing with "reasonable expectation of privacy".
Also note that I specifically stated "most likely could not be charged", so there is still a chance you could be charged if special circumstances exist.
if you are aware of the potential dangers and accept the risk."
Like getting bitchslapped?
You would be an accessory if you provided the phone. So no, not guilty of said offense, but guilty of not taking reasonable steps so it wouldn't happen.
If the cops have a search warrant for child porn, and they find pot plants, they will seize the plants and growing equimpment, but most likely will not be able to charge them with any crimes related to the pot. In order to legally seize property, cops need to have the items they are specifically looking for on a search warrant. A search warrant isn't a "blank check" that can be used to search for anything. If you actually suspected your neighbor of growing pot and wanted to get them busted, the easist way would be an anonymous phone tip with you lying and saying you have observed the plants firsthand yourself.
Yep, mention their "Cup of Joe and Child Porn" special to receive 50 cents off your latte.
Realistically though, I would sit OUTSIDE of Starbucks and use their connection. Retail stores often have video cameras that could be used to see who was in the store at the time of the criminal activity. Oh, and use one of these to get even further away to avoid outside surveillance cameras.
If you responsibly set up your Wifi so it isn't wide open, there isn't an issue to begin with. If you leave it open, then the irresponsibility of others IS passed along to you for allowing it. Open Wifi is asking for trouble, and there is only a limited need for it. Most open Wifi spots are due to laziness or ignorance. Can you please explain the pressing need to have open, unrestricted, unlogged Wifi??
If you mounted a phone on the outside of your house and put a "FREE USE" sign over it, would you be pissed when you got the long distance bill??
"If you walk down the street holding an opened packet of chips* (aka "fries") aren't you a fast-food outlet?"
No, but if you were letting anyone who wanted to take some chips, you WOULD be a food provider.
How did this not get modded offtopic? This post has absolutely nothing to do with open WAPs and is an intentionally inflamatory comment, posted no doubt with the hopes that others will respond with similarly inflamatory comments.
So if I put a bunch of loaded guns in my house, unlocked and opened the door, and put a huge banner in my yard that said "FREE LOADED GUNS IN UNLOCKED HOUSE", I should be surprised (and not liable) when someone comes in and starts shooting them??
If you want to have an open Wifi, you had better be ready to deal with the fact that- 1) People will abuse it 2) Ultimately you are responsible for what happens over your connection.
If you have an open WiFi running, aren't you technically an ISP?
Hopefully the most of the bugs will be worked out by the the time SP1 comes out. Personally, except for pure test beds, I always wait until the first SP comes out to install any OS. I remember fighting with a couple Macs when the first version of OS X came out. Same with Windows Server 2003. But i wouldn't completely write Vista off yet, especially in your case with a complex setup, the drivers may take a bit to all get working in unison.
Vista != Aero. Implying that all Vista comprises is a GUI is like saying KDE = Linux kernel. Actually DX10 was one of their big selling points, looks like they will have to find something else to taut out now...
For god sakes it's a computer, not a lifestyle. Real "Mac users" aren't changing the world, they are just plunking away at the keyboard like the rest of the world.
since you seem to like the dictionary try this one-
Main Entry: condescend
Pronunciation: "kän-di-'send
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French condescendre, from Late Latin condescendere, from Latin com- + descendere to descend
1 a : to descend to a less formal or dignified level
2 : to assume an air of superiority
The Newton.