Jesus, what is the statute of limitations on that awful chair joke? Is there any way I can set the filter to not display messages with "Ballmer" and "chair" in them? It wasn't that funny the first million times I saw it, and it is getting un-funnier every additional million times since.
The yuppies ARE the ones that go to Starbucks. Where I live, there are so many small independent coffee shops, no self-respecting person would ever go to Starbucks for coffee.
Also, I think you have some anger management issues. I would tell you to lay off the coffee a little, but...
(I am only jesting here. I generally want to punch yuppies too.)
"MADD released a statement saying that 'Drunk driving is not a game, and it is not a joke. "
Maybe Rockstar should release a statement saying that 'GTA IV IS a video game, and is an amusement.'
Hey MADD - did you see the word game in the description 'video game' on the box? Did you really think that tiny box included real alcohol and a real car? I am all for reducing drunk driving, but that being the case MADD should be doing things to actually reduce real drunk driving and stop wasting their time on this non-issue.
Even in regards to organ donation, if the family of the deceased does not want the organs donated, they can usually "trump" the wishes of the dead. I have read cases of it happening before. So apparently the wishes of someone alive can take precedence over the wishes of the dead, even if they are clearly and plainly stated in advance by the deceased. Some states have laws barring the family from making changes to provisions such as this, but in some cases the family has stopped organs from being donated.
Is there a difference? Some of the fake products I have seen from over there have been pretty impressive. (Most are not though.)
Aren't the real ones made in China also?
"So there really isn't a risk, in this case, of executing maleficent code or overwriting large portions of anything."
That was also the line of thinking by Robbert Morris when he released "the great worm" back in 1988. We know how that turned out. There is ALWAYS some risk.
What is the difference between you remotely controlling someone's PC in an unauthorized manner, and the people running the botnets doing the same? Intent? That is a really lousy ruler in which to measure actions, and is opening a large can of worms....
In theory. I had a friend get busted because a cop "smelled burning marijuana" when he was pulled over and the cop searched his car based on "probable cause". Didn't find any marijuana at all (my friend never smoked it, or even possessed it) but found some other drugs hidden in the car. He was prosecuted even though it was obvious the cop lied about the probable cause in order to illegally search his car. It was plea bargained down, but it is still on my friend's record. I know of other people who have been pulled over by cops for "swerving" but were subsequently let go after the cops figured out they were not driving drunk. Just a BS excuse for a cop to pull you over for no reason, or to search your car for the same. How many people that are searched illegally and then let go without any charges do you think lodge a formal complaint??
And "probable cause" is an easy thing for any law enforcement agent to invent from thin air if they want to. And wouldn't taking someone's computer to see what they have been browsing be a form of self-incrimination if they find anything illegal? That is what I am saying - what is reasonable and where do you draw the line?
Funny how the anti-Sweden post is modded "Troll" while the anti-US post is modded "Insightful". Sorry people, but Nationalism, no matter which country it originates from, is just wrong.
The way I look at it if you download something , and then sell it or profit somehow from it, that IS stealing. But watching a movie you were never planning on buying anyways is NOT stealing. That being said I have purchased far more films on DVD in the last few years than I ever could have downloaded. But sorry, until Hollywood starts making films that don't suck so bad, I want a chance to see them first before buying. (Disclaimer - I am not a big warez/movie/music downloader by any means. But I think what the RIAA is doing is far worse than any civil copyright issues.)
And my comments were address to Anonymous Cowards. You replied.
But then again, that's what I should expect from someone who is too much of a wimp to even give a name.
Imagine that, an Anonymous Coward on a high horse about their morals. LOL! Thanks for giving me a laugh! Now go away...
It's not circular logic. I just don't share your exact set of "morals", and since you don't agree, you assume I don't have any. You are preventing me from sharing your morals, because if I did, I would have to kill myself for being such a pathetic putz and would cease having any morals again as I would be dead. Simple really...
Does that mean he could bring information gained during the investigation to Time-Warner?? Is that legal even if he didn't start talking to them until after the investigation concluded??
I know that the bounds of logic have been pushed in our "terr'ist filled world", but even I can't make the stretch that a subpoena for getting voluntarily submitted traffic information would somehow involve national security.
Not saying it isn't completely infeasible, just unlikely.
The speed cameras have not all been taken down (the city tried to appeal the court's decision that they were unconstitutional unsuccessfully) but none of them are active.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1688.asp Minnesota Supreme Court Strikes Down Red Light Cameras
April 5, 2007
The Minnesota Supreme Court delivers a unanimous decision striking down the legality of red light cameras.
The Minnesota Supreme Court today delivered the highest-level court rebuke to photo enforcement to date with a unanimous decision against the Minneapolis red light camera program. The high court upheld last September's Court of Appeals decision that found the city's program had violated state law.
The court also struck down the "rebutable presumption" doctrine that lies at the heart of every civil photo enforcement ordinance across the country.
"The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure," the court concluded. "Therefore the ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance violation than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act. Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid."
You should really try to avoid thinking that all "Americans" think alike, and are oblivious to the way people in other countries think about us. Remember, about 50% of this county didn't like the way things were going in the last elections, and tried to change leadership. Unfortunately it didn't work out so well. But don't ever think that large majority of the population here agrees with our leader's moronic decisions all the time. It is very far from the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus, what is the statute of limitations on that awful chair joke? Is there any way I can set the filter to not display messages with "Ballmer" and "chair" in them? It wasn't that funny the first million times I saw it, and it is getting un-funnier every additional million times since.
The yuppies ARE the ones that go to Starbucks. Where I live, there are so many small independent coffee shops, no self-respecting person would ever go to Starbucks for coffee.
Also, I think you have some anger management issues. I would tell you to lay off the coffee a little, but...
(I am only jesting here. I generally want to punch yuppies too.)
"MADD released a statement saying that 'Drunk driving is not a game, and it is not a joke. "
Maybe Rockstar should release a statement saying that 'GTA IV IS a video game, and is an amusement.'
Hey MADD - did you see the word game in the description 'video game' on the box? Did you really think that tiny box included real alcohol and a real car? I am all for reducing drunk driving, but that being the case MADD should be doing things to actually reduce real drunk driving and stop wasting their time on this non-issue.
Even in regards to organ donation, if the family of the deceased does not want the organs donated, they can usually "trump" the wishes of the dead. I have read cases of it happening before. So apparently the wishes of someone alive can take precedence over the wishes of the dead, even if they are clearly and plainly stated in advance by the deceased. Some states have laws barring the family from making changes to provisions such as this, but in some cases the family has stopped organs from being donated.
Unless they were directly threatening your life at the time, it would be illegal. Right and wrong are irrelevant when it comes to the legal system.
Is there a difference? Some of the fake products I have seen from over there have been pretty impressive. (Most are not though.)
Aren't the real ones made in China also?
Must be one of my many "fans" modding me down for personal reasons. Oh well. I know - "Welcome to Slashdot. You must be new here!"
"So there really isn't a risk, in this case, of executing maleficent code or overwriting large portions of anything."
That was also the line of thinking by Robbert Morris when he released "the great worm" back in 1988. We know how that turned out. There is ALWAYS some risk.
What is the difference between you remotely controlling someone's PC in an unauthorized manner, and the people running the botnets doing the same? Intent? That is a really lousy ruler in which to measure actions, and is opening a large can of worms....
In theory. I had a friend get busted because a cop "smelled burning marijuana" when he was pulled over and the cop searched his car based on "probable cause". Didn't find any marijuana at all (my friend never smoked it, or even possessed it) but found some other drugs hidden in the car. He was prosecuted even though it was obvious the cop lied about the probable cause in order to illegally search his car. It was plea bargained down, but it is still on my friend's record. I know of other people who have been pulled over by cops for "swerving" but were subsequently let go after the cops figured out they were not driving drunk. Just a BS excuse for a cop to pull you over for no reason, or to search your car for the same. How many people that are searched illegally and then let go without any charges do you think lodge a formal complaint??
And "probable cause" is an easy thing for any law enforcement agent to invent from thin air if they want to. And wouldn't taking someone's computer to see what they have been browsing be a form of self-incrimination if they find anything illegal? That is what I am saying - what is reasonable and where do you draw the line?
"Privacy should be upheld WITHIN REASON."
Well, that is the problem. Define REASON. It is about as easy as defining obscenity.
Funny how the anti-Sweden post is modded "Troll" while the anti-US post is modded "Insightful". Sorry people, but Nationalism, no matter which country it originates from, is just wrong.
The way I look at it if you download something , and then sell it or profit somehow from it, that IS stealing. But watching a movie you were never planning on buying anyways is NOT stealing. That being said I have purchased far more films on DVD in the last few years than I ever could have downloaded. But sorry, until Hollywood starts making films that don't suck so bad, I want a chance to see them first before buying. (Disclaimer - I am not a big warez/movie/music downloader by any means. But I think what the RIAA is doing is far worse than any civil copyright issues.)
And my comments were address to Anonymous Cowards. You replied.
But then again, that's what I should expect from someone who is too much of a wimp to even give a name.
Imagine that, an Anonymous Coward on a high horse about their morals. LOL! Thanks for giving me a laugh! Now go away...
It's not circular logic. I just don't share your exact set of "morals", and since you don't agree, you assume I don't have any. You are preventing me from sharing your morals, because if I did, I would have to kill myself for being such a pathetic putz and would cease having any morals again as I would be dead. Simple really...
It's not based on talent or smarts obviously. The bottom line is money. The RIAA have way more than a public defender does at their disposal.
"Money talks. Feel free to kill whomever you like, just make sure he's not rich!"
Or just make sure that you are rich.
"What prevents all you fucking thieves from having any moral values?"
Offhand, I would say pricks like you trying to impose your own "moral values" on the rest of us...
And for the 8 millionth time here, it isn't "thievery" - it is copyright violation. Get it right!
A public defender beating and getting money from the RIAA lawyer team. Nice pipe dream.
Does that mean he could bring information gained during the investigation to Time-Warner?? Is that legal even if he didn't start talking to them until after the investigation concluded??
"Fair point, but nobody's going to turn up to a film with Kyle MacLachlan in the lead, surely?"
Yeah, Blue Velvet and Twin Peaks sure sucked. They were totally not interesting, different, and visually stunning at times. Nope, not at all.~
I know that the bounds of logic have been pushed in our "terr'ist filled world", but even I can't make the stretch that a subpoena for getting voluntarily submitted traffic information would somehow involve national security.
Not saying it isn't completely infeasible, just unlikely.
The speed cameras have not all been taken down (the city tried to appeal the court's decision that they were unconstitutional unsuccessfully) but none of them are active.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1688.asp
Minnesota Supreme Court Strikes Down Red Light Cameras
April 5, 2007
The Minnesota Supreme Court delivers a unanimous decision striking down the legality of red light cameras.
The Minnesota Supreme Court today delivered the highest-level court rebuke to photo enforcement to date with a unanimous decision against the Minneapolis red light camera program. The high court upheld last September's Court of Appeals decision that found the city's program had violated state law.
The court also struck down the "rebutable presumption" doctrine that lies at the heart of every civil photo enforcement ordinance across the country.
"The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure," the court concluded. "Therefore the ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance violation than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act. Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid."
You should really try to avoid thinking that all "Americans" think alike, and are oblivious to the way people in other countries think about us. Remember, about 50% of this county didn't like the way things were going in the last elections, and tried to change leadership. Unfortunately it didn't work out so well. But don't ever think that large majority of the population here agrees with our leader's moronic decisions all the time. It is very far from the case.