Ok, to clarify for the hopelessly pedantic- yes I realize it is possible (but not probable) to buy automatic weapons - however with a lot of restrictions. Currently you cannot buy new automatic weapons, and can only buy fully auto weapons that have been privately owned before 1987. Which is a small percentage of all handguns and long guns out there. So yes technically it is possible to buy fully automatic weapons, but unless you are rich and lucky enough to find someone who wants to sell one, you aren't going to be legally owning any full autos any time soon.
Yes, but it isn't as easy as walking in with a pile of cash, and walking out with an automatic weapon. You need to be approved for the purchase, or be a registered Class 3 gun dealer. From the web site you linked itself -
Unlike conventional firearms, each change of possession or ownership of a NFA item (silencer, machine gun, short barreled shotgun or rifle, etc.) must be approved in advance by BATF. This includes not only the sale of such a weapon, but also the act of giving or loaning it to another person. Failure to comply can result in a $250,000 fine, 10 years in prison, or both. Silencers may be transported interstate by the registered owner but interstate transport of machine guns, short barreled rifles or short barreled shotguns will require the owner to file a form 5320.20 "Application to transport interstate or temporarily export certain NFA Firearms" PRIOR to transporting the weapon across state lines. Contact your local BATF office if you need further information.
Each time a NFA weapon changes hands, the transfer must be approved in advance by the NFA branch of the BATF. It normally takes 4-5 weeks for BATF to approve the transfer between dealers or to law enforcement agencies, and the transfer to individuals requires 3-4 months.
Yes of course I wasn't talking about collector's pieces and such. I am talking about going into a gun store and buying an automatic weapon. It just isn't happening. And the reason most people that own them have them locked up is becasue even though there are loopholes allowing citizens to own them, discharging them is a whole other ballgame. I don't know of any real cities that allow the discharge of firearms in the city limits except in designated areas like gun ranges. I guess that is why the crazy gun-loving anti-government groups seem to have their compounds out in the middle of nowhere in rural states. When you own the 1000 acres that surround you, you are free to do just about anything you want...
you are not allowed to own and carry an automatic weapon.
Actually in the US, even if you are not a felon you cannot own and/or carry an automatic weapon. Semi-automatic is ok, but to own and use a fully automatic you either need to be military or law enforcement. You can rent and shoot automatic weapons in firing ranges, but they cannot be taken off the ranges.
In dead last place in the browser wars? That's a bold prediction. I mean this is Slashdot and we have all heard the "this move is the beginning of the death of Microsoft", but you sir have balls.
If the security people can find cut break lines, what make you think they would miss the computer plugged into the diagnostic port? The one sending and reviving radio waves all over the place that are very detectable? Something tells me that VIPs already knew about the possibility of this vector of atttack and either check the diagnostics port already as part of their security sweep of the car, or have the diagnostic port armored or even removed to prevent tampering. The point being made was that physical access - to a car or computer - quickly can be game over. But with a car they physical evidence would probably be easier to detect.
Not being upset about a crime doesn't automatically make it legal. If you steal from a thief you are still stealing according to the law. Morally you may feel justified. But being justified also doesn't automatically make things legal. If someone beats up your sister, and you beat that person up, do you think the cops are simply not going to arrest you for assault? No, you would both be charged. You may receive a lighter sentence due to mitigating circumstances, but that doesn't mean you didn't break the law.
I don't think anyone is going to get to upset about this incident either, but it will prove to be an example on how the laws are not always applied equally. I certainly don't want Rockstar to get into any trouble over this, but I can't pretend they didn't redistribute materials they may not have had the legal right to do. Someone at Rockstar knew this wasn't legal - they were just betting the odds of getting caught (by being so dumb as to not remove the Myth ascii logo) and having anything negative happen was very slim. If "the law" doesn't go after them for redistributing copyrighted materials, how are they going to justify nailing anybody else for the same?
The problem wasn't SP3, the problem was whatever software you were using didn't work well with SP3.
Actually, it sounded like the real problem was a boss who didn't understand technology. (Boy do I know that one all too well.)
In your defense you didn't say it was Microsoft's fault, that was just something I may have wrongfully inferred. (But this is Slashdot so I just sort of expected some MS hatred.)
You wrote a book. I decided I didn't like chaper 3, so I cut it out, added some new material (for example, a copyrighted logo), and redistributed it for free.
You decided I was right, and redistibuted MY version, and charged for it.
The part of what was being sold that was mine is what I added. In this example, we would BOTH be in the wrong.
Yes, Myth had no right to re-distribute the code they did, becasue it was not granted from Rockstar. They were wrong. But unless Rockstar had permission from Myth, or whoever owns the copyright to the Myth logo, they did not have rights to re-distribute Myth's copyrighted material. (Before you try to tell me Myth probably didn't actually copyright the logo, yes you are correct. However anytime you create something it is automatically copyrighted. Officially doing it just makes it easier to sue later.) Rockstar owned their original code, but anything that Myth added they do not own, and cannot re-distribute, which is exactly what they did. Myth owns whatever the difference was between the original code, and the cracked.exe - nothing more and nothing less.
My point was none of any of those problems relate to Microsoft. If you want to use old equipment and old software, more power to you. Believe me I understand the reasons why someone would want to do so. But don't complain that your out of support software isn't being supported anymore. You are doing so at your own risk and own support. In the specific example the software did run on XP SP2, so I don't think it would be a huge stretch to assume it wouldn't take an enormous amount of work to get it running on the same OS with some patches. Oh and if you are running old unsupported OS on machines for whatever reasons, for Christ sake DON'T hook them up to the internet. As long as they are only attached to whatever equipment they need to be attached to, you are probably ok.
Your mistake was buying a used Compaq Presario. I wouldn't touch one of THOSE with a ten foot pole. I re-installed Windows for a customer a few years back on one of these and he was bringing it to me to fix one thing or another at least twice a month for a few months. Until basically I had to tell him that the "free" customer service I offer on my work was not unlimited, and that his system was causing most of the problems. I ended up buying a new Dell for him and have not heard from him since.
Anecdotal for sure, but was just answering one anecdote with another.
It doesn't take a dedicated IT staff to turn Automatic Updates on, which would have downloaded (and possibly automatically installed depending on the settings) SP3. Or even to manually visit Windows Update once in a while, and install the critical patches at the very least. Being an IT support person myself this is probably a biased opinion, but not having sufficient IT support is dumb no matter how small your business is. If you can't afford someone full time, at least get some outside consultants to occasionally look at your security and disaster recovery policies. If you don't have either of those, a catastrophic loss of data without adequate backups will probably spell the end of your company.
And so you think it is up to Microsoft to continue support for SP2 because you use some third-party software they have nothing to do with?? I think your beef should be with the software company not making their software work with the current patch to the operating system, and not vice-versa.
But if the code was changed, then it isn't the original code that Rockstar owns anymore. Whether or not Myth had the legal right to the original code or not, the resulting code is different. I am not talking about Myth suing them for a civil matter, I am talking about a company selling code they did not write. Maybe Myth could go after them for using their logo, but something tells me they didn't trademark it properly in the first place.
Which would be an appropriate analogy if it was their own code to start with, but it wasn't. A better analogy would be "If you steal the wallet of some else becasue yours was also stolen, you ARE going to jail." They flat out stole someone's code, and are selling it for a profit. Kindly explain to me how that isn't illegal. Two wrongs don't make a right. (but 3 lefts do!)
If you want to read a really good book on the subject, David Grann's "The Lost City of Z" is my suggestion. Full of history but not dry or boring at all.
So can they use this to find the fabled Lost City of Z in the Amazon jungle? And maybe the remains of explorer Percy Fawcett who disappeared looking for it?
Well, the logical way would be to phrase it like that, but the clauses have been reversed since the 1800s, and has been pretty commonly accepted in it's current form. If you realize that "have" in this case means "to posses" and not "to eat" it still works either way.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, to clarify for the hopelessly pedantic- yes I realize it is possible (but not probable) to buy automatic weapons - however with a lot of restrictions. Currently you cannot buy new automatic weapons, and can only buy fully auto weapons that have been privately owned before 1987. Which is a small percentage of all handguns and long guns out there. So yes technically it is possible to buy fully automatic weapons, but unless you are rich and lucky enough to find someone who wants to sell one, you aren't going to be legally owning any full autos any time soon.
Unlike conventional firearms, each change of possession or ownership of a NFA item (silencer, machine gun, short barreled shotgun or rifle, etc.) must be approved in advance by BATF. This includes not only the sale of such a weapon, but also the act of giving or loaning it to another person. Failure to comply can result in a $250,000 fine, 10 years in prison, or both. Silencers may be transported interstate by the registered owner but interstate transport of machine guns, short barreled rifles or short barreled shotguns will require the owner to file a form 5320.20 "Application to transport interstate or temporarily export certain NFA Firearms" PRIOR to transporting the weapon across state lines. Contact your local BATF office if you need further information.
Each time a NFA weapon changes hands, the transfer must be approved in advance by the NFA branch of the BATF. It normally takes 4-5 weeks for BATF to approve the transfer between dealers or to law enforcement agencies, and the transfer to individuals requires 3-4 months.
Yes of course I wasn't talking about collector's pieces and such. I am talking about going into a gun store and buying an automatic weapon. It just isn't happening. And the reason most people that own them have them locked up is becasue even though there are loopholes allowing citizens to own them, discharging them is a whole other ballgame. I don't know of any real cities that allow the discharge of firearms in the city limits except in designated areas like gun ranges. I guess that is why the crazy gun-loving anti-government groups seem to have their compounds out in the middle of nowhere in rural states. When you own the 1000 acres that surround you, you are free to do just about anything you want...
you are not allowed to own and carry an automatic weapon.
Actually in the US, even if you are not a felon you cannot own and/or carry an automatic weapon. Semi-automatic is ok, but to own and use a fully automatic you either need to be military or law enforcement. You can rent and shoot automatic weapons in firing ranges, but they cannot be taken off the ranges.
I just find that most people who swear all the time have almost nothing useful or interesting to say, or otherwise full of self importance.
Funny, I feel exactly the same about people that get their undies in a bundle over people who use swear words.
In dead last place in the browser wars? That's a bold prediction. I mean this is Slashdot and we have all heard the "this move is the beginning of the death of Microsoft", but you sir have balls.
If the security people can find cut break lines, what make you think they would miss the computer plugged into the diagnostic port? The one sending and reviving radio waves all over the place that are very detectable? Something tells me that VIPs already knew about the possibility of this vector of atttack and either check the diagnostics port already as part of their security sweep of the car, or have the diagnostic port armored or even removed to prevent tampering. The point being made was that physical access - to a car or computer - quickly can be game over. But with a car they physical evidence would probably be easier to detect.
Not being upset about a crime doesn't automatically make it legal. If you steal from a thief you are still stealing according to the law. Morally you may feel justified. But being justified also doesn't automatically make things legal. If someone beats up your sister, and you beat that person up, do you think the cops are simply not going to arrest you for assault? No, you would both be charged. You may receive a lighter sentence due to mitigating circumstances, but that doesn't mean you didn't break the law.
I don't think anyone is going to get to upset about this incident either, but it will prove to be an example on how the laws are not always applied equally. I certainly don't want Rockstar to get into any trouble over this, but I can't pretend they didn't redistribute materials they may not have had the legal right to do. Someone at Rockstar knew this wasn't legal - they were just betting the odds of getting caught (by being so dumb as to not remove the Myth ascii logo) and having anything negative happen was very slim. If "the law" doesn't go after them for redistributing copyrighted materials, how are they going to justify nailing anybody else for the same?
Wee, wee, wee all the way home.
The problem wasn't SP3, the problem was whatever software you were using didn't work well with SP3.
Actually, it sounded like the real problem was a boss who didn't understand technology. (Boy do I know that one all too well.)
In your defense you didn't say it was Microsoft's fault, that was just something I may have wrongfully inferred. (But this is Slashdot so I just sort of expected some MS hatred.)
Well, technically I didn't reference Wikipedia. I referenced a phrase very commonly seen on Wikipedia.
You wrote a book. I decided I didn't like chaper 3, so I cut it out, added some new material (for example, a copyrighted logo), and redistributed it for free.
.exe - nothing more and nothing less.
You decided I was right, and redistibuted MY version, and charged for it.
The part of what was being sold that was mine is what I added. In this example, we would BOTH be in the wrong.
Yes, Myth had no right to re-distribute the code they did, becasue it was not granted from Rockstar. They were wrong. But unless Rockstar had permission from Myth, or whoever owns the copyright to the Myth logo, they did not have rights to re-distribute Myth's copyrighted material. (Before you try to tell me Myth probably didn't actually copyright the logo, yes you are correct. However anytime you create something it is automatically copyrighted. Officially doing it just makes it easier to sue later.) Rockstar owned their original code, but anything that Myth added they do not own, and cannot re-distribute, which is exactly what they did. Myth owns whatever the difference was between the original code, and the cracked
My point was none of any of those problems relate to Microsoft. If you want to use old equipment and old software, more power to you. Believe me I understand the reasons why someone would want to do so. But don't complain that your out of support software isn't being supported anymore. You are doing so at your own risk and own support. In the specific example the software did run on XP SP2, so I don't think it would be a huge stretch to assume it wouldn't take an enormous amount of work to get it running on the same OS with some patches. Oh and if you are running old unsupported OS on machines for whatever reasons, for Christ sake DON'T hook them up to the internet. As long as they are only attached to whatever equipment they need to be attached to, you are probably ok.
Your mistake was buying a used Compaq Presario. I wouldn't touch one of THOSE with a ten foot pole. I re-installed Windows for a customer a few years back on one of these and he was bringing it to me to fix one thing or another at least twice a month for a few months. Until basically I had to tell him that the "free" customer service I offer on my work was not unlimited, and that his system was causing most of the problems. I ended up buying a new Dell for him and have not heard from him since.
Anecdotal for sure, but was just answering one anecdote with another.
It doesn't take a dedicated IT staff to turn Automatic Updates on, which would have downloaded (and possibly automatically installed depending on the settings) SP3. Or even to manually visit Windows Update once in a while, and install the critical patches at the very least. Being an IT support person myself this is probably a biased opinion, but not having sufficient IT support is dumb no matter how small your business is. If you can't afford someone full time, at least get some outside consultants to occasionally look at your security and disaster recovery policies. If you don't have either of those, a catastrophic loss of data without adequate backups will probably spell the end of your company.
And so you think it is up to Microsoft to continue support for SP2 because you use some third-party software they have nothing to do with?? I think your beef should be with the software company not making their software work with the current patch to the operating system, and not vice-versa.
I say this because every person I know that uses wikipedia as a reference is in fact an idiot.
[Citation Needed]
And this is different from any other operating systems how exactly?
But if the code was changed, then it isn't the original code that Rockstar owns anymore. Whether or not Myth had the legal right to the original code or not, the resulting code is different. I am not talking about Myth suing them for a civil matter, I am talking about a company selling code they did not write. Maybe Myth could go after them for using their logo, but something tells me they didn't trademark it properly in the first place.
Which would be an appropriate analogy if it was their own code to start with, but it wasn't. A better analogy would be "If you steal the wallet of some else becasue yours was also stolen, you ARE going to jail." They flat out stole someone's code, and are selling it for a profit. Kindly explain to me how that isn't illegal. Two wrongs don't make a right. (but 3 lefts do!)
Note to self - Microsoft and Amazon are actually huge failures. Thanks for the tip!
If you want to read a really good book on the subject, David Grann's "The Lost City of Z" is my suggestion. Full of history but not dry or boring at all.
So can they use this to find the fabled Lost City of Z in the Amazon jungle? And maybe the remains of explorer Percy Fawcett who disappeared looking for it?
Well, the logical way would be to phrase it like that, but the clauses have been reversed since the 1800s, and has been pretty commonly accepted in it's current form. If you realize that "have" in this case means "to posses" and not "to eat" it still works either way.
What's the benefit of being in Germany?
Because obviously nothing evil could ever come from Germany.