She never sent a single message. She goaded no one. Therefore, she murdered no one.
The only murderer, by your definition, was given immunity because she was just 20, hitting on a 13 year old, then telling her the world would be better without her.
If you are at a public university, your tuition/fees likely don't cover what you get outside of bandwidth. At my small branch campus, the combined tuition/technology fee for a year doesn't cover faculty/staff salaries. Most of our money comes from the state. So...no. Your technology fee does NOT give a right to do whatever you want on my network.
Hey, "bad evidence" damns the jury more than anyone else. If used to be that only the dumbest elements of society couldn't get out of jury duty. At least where I live, it's damn hard to get out of it. So why not put the jury in jail, too? Those are the ones who are ultimately responsible for the conviction.
You said: "A database of books based on the standard library card catalog is not something whose collection would be protected by copyright."
Theoretically, you are correct except for the fact that they compiled that "standard library card catalog" (hereafter referred to as Dewey Decimal Classification or DDC) system initially, making the numbering the original work. http://www.oclc.org/dewey/
Since they originally compiled the books and created the numbering system (thereby creating a unique database which is no longer simply facts, known as the DDC), your post amounts to a whole lot of "whoosh" followed by an astounding amount of nothingness.
If anyone is to blame for this, it is the libraries who license that database instead of something a little more free, in all respects.
What about forcing a pharmacist to do their job and fill all valid prescriptions put before them? No one is talking about forcing doctors to perform procedures, this is about pharmacists deciding not to fill certain prescriptions because they don't like one of their uses.
What you're asking is for the government to place artificial restrictions on the free market by applying some backwards protectionist scheme. It is no longer free then. The free market regulates itself without government involvement. That's what everyone screams when the idea of regulation is raised. You're asking for regulation, but in the opposite direction. Don't regulate the providers (i.e. raising minimum wage), regulate the supply of workers.
A good or service is worth exactly what someone will pay for it. That is a definition in a free market. If I have 7 somethings and someone pays me $200,000 for one, that is its value. If I sell the rest for $50 each, that is their value. It works the same way with wages. A wage is fair in a truly free market when someone will work at that wage. You are arbitrarily changing that to be "the wage is fair when a government-regulated, artificially small subset of available someones will work at it." And that is not your precious free market.
As far as you claiming the job openings don't exist because illegals fill them...yes, the job openings do exist. At the beginning of every season, the job openings exist. Why are they filled by illegals? Because unemployed Americans don't. It's the same reason McDonald's is always hiring and unemployment doesn't go down. It's easier to say there are no jobs than to take a job that one doesn't want.
Choices and consequences. If you feel that strongly about non-competes, don't take the job. Find another. If you can't, you need to more closely examine your choices.
3 times the federal minimum wage for a job that is, by definition unskilled labor, isn't enough for Americans? (note - I say three times based on the guy up there somewhere whose family paid 12 an hour plus benefits and only illegals would do the work. http://idle.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1014351&cid=25590575 )
That is insanity. Either you up the minimum wage to a level that reflects the "American rate" or you admit that illegals are doing it for a fair price (three times what the government says you need to make in order to live) or you admit that no American would stoop so low.
With our unemployment levels rising, the fact that more Americans (who in your words are "available and willing to do the work") won't take those jobs say you are mistaken.
Do you really think 2/3 of the states would ratify such an amendment? Especially since some, if not all, states require public vote on such amendments? Or do you just have no clue what it takes to amend the Constitution?
It depends on how it was discovered. I suspect most of these "found" security holes were found in the process of doing something illegal, i.e. computer trespass/unauthorized access. At that point, the finder should absolutely not be subject to whistleblower protection.
"The 15-year-old sophomore allegedly breached the district's system while in computer simulation class and gained access to 250 names of past and present Shen transportation employees. He used his student password to view their Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers and more, Shenendehowa officials said.
Then he allegedly sent an e-mail at 1 p.m. Tuesday to High School Principal Donald Flynt, saying he had the database.
Flynt contacted police, who arrested the young man Thursday and charged him with computer trespass, unlawful possession of personal identification information and identity theft, all felonies. He will appear before Saratoga County Family Court at a later date, State Police said Friday."
And later.... "Investigators originally believed two students were involved in the alleged intrusion, but police determined the student arrested used two passwords, State Trooper Maureen Tuffey said."
So he accessed it and sent an email saying he had a copy of it. On top of that, he allegedly used someone else's account to get it. So we have using someone else's password - computer trespass. Taking a copy of the database (article's word, I suspect simple spreadsheet) - unlawful possession of personal identification information. The identity theft charge is likely added because that is a logically consistent step when you take the information.
Maybe the identity theft charge is over the top, but the others are 100% legit. Based on the information available. Or will the argument be made that the IT staff should have used biometrics to prevent him using another account? After all, everything else is the IT staff's fault...
I have a problem with anyone getting back more than they paid in taxes, but that could be because I'm a childless, unmarried, middle class guy who doesn't get any tax breaks.
You had better be 110% sure that an actual crime was committed before you try.
Example: It is 1:30 a.m. and you see someone carrying a tv out of a house and into a van. You do not recognize that person as a resident of the house in question. You haven't spoken to the owner of the house but you suspect a robbery is taking place. You call 911 but the van gets ready to leave before the police get there so you prevent the van from leaving by blocking the driveway or the road and refusing to let that person get around.
When the police arrive it turns out that the individual you stopped just purchased the tv from the owner of the house and was picking it up.
You just committed a crime. Whether it is actual kidnapping or just unlawful imprisonment I couldn't say, but you don't want any part of that.
Slashdot Mirror
She never sent a single message. She goaded no one. Therefore, she murdered no one.
The only murderer, by your definition, was given immunity because she was just 20, hitting on a 13 year old, then telling her the world would be better without her.
If you are at a public university, your tuition/fees likely don't cover what you get outside of bandwidth. At my small branch campus, the combined tuition/technology fee for a year doesn't cover faculty/staff salaries. Most of our money comes from the state. So...no. Your technology fee does NOT give a right to do whatever you want on my network.
Hey, "bad evidence" damns the jury more than anyone else. If used to be that only the dumbest elements of society couldn't get out of jury duty. At least where I live, it's damn hard to get out of it. So why not put the jury in jail, too? Those are the ones who are ultimately responsible for the conviction.
Don't forget that his freedom includes the right to distribute any software you own to anyone with no restrictions...
You said:
"A database of books based on the standard library card catalog is not something whose collection would be protected by copyright."
Theoretically, you are correct except for the fact that they compiled that "standard library card catalog" (hereafter referred to as Dewey Decimal Classification or DDC) system initially, making the numbering the original work. http://www.oclc.org/dewey/
Since they originally compiled the books and created the numbering system (thereby creating a unique database which is no longer simply facts, known as the DDC), your post amounts to a whole lot of "whoosh" followed by an astounding amount of nothingness.
If anyone is to blame for this, it is the libraries who license that database instead of something a little more free, in all respects.
What about forcing a pharmacist to do their job and fill all valid prescriptions put before them? No one is talking about forcing doctors to perform procedures, this is about pharmacists deciding not to fill certain prescriptions because they don't like one of their uses.
What you're asking is for the government to place artificial restrictions on the free market by applying some backwards protectionist scheme. It is no longer free then. The free market regulates itself without government involvement. That's what everyone screams when the idea of regulation is raised. You're asking for regulation, but in the opposite direction. Don't regulate the providers (i.e. raising minimum wage), regulate the supply of workers.
A good or service is worth exactly what someone will pay for it. That is a definition in a free market. If I have 7 somethings and someone pays me $200,000 for one, that is its value. If I sell the rest for $50 each, that is their value. It works the same way with wages. A wage is fair in a truly free market when someone will work at that wage. You are arbitrarily changing that to be "the wage is fair when a government-regulated, artificially small subset of available someones will work at it." And that is not your precious free market.
As far as you claiming the job openings don't exist because illegals fill them...yes, the job openings do exist. At the beginning of every season, the job openings exist. Why are they filled by illegals? Because unemployed Americans don't. It's the same reason McDonald's is always hiring and unemployment doesn't go down. It's easier to say there are no jobs than to take a job that one doesn't want.
Choices and consequences. If you feel that strongly about non-competes, don't take the job. Find another. If you can't, you need to more closely examine your choices.
3 times the federal minimum wage for a job that is, by definition unskilled labor, isn't enough for Americans? (note - I say three times based on the guy up there somewhere whose family paid 12 an hour plus benefits and only illegals would do the work. http://idle.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1014351&cid=25590575 )
That is insanity. Either you up the minimum wage to a level that reflects the "American rate" or you admit that illegals are doing it for a fair price (three times what the government says you need to make in order to live) or you admit that no American would stoop so low.
With our unemployment levels rising, the fact that more Americans (who in your words are "available and willing to do the work") won't take those jobs say you are mistaken.
Or people should stop signing them. Personal responsibility and all that.
Do you really think 2/3 of the states would ratify such an amendment? Especially since some, if not all, states require public vote on such amendments? Or do you just have no clue what it takes to amend the Constitution?
The article I cited elsewhere pretty much says otherwise.
http://timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=732745
It depends on how it was discovered. I suspect most of these "found" security holes were found in the process of doing something illegal, i.e. computer trespass/unauthorized access. At that point, the finder should absolutely not be subject to whistleblower protection.
Based on http://timesunion.com/AspStories/storyprint.asp?StoryID=732745:
"The 15-year-old sophomore allegedly breached the district's system while in computer simulation class and gained access to 250 names of past and present Shen transportation employees. He used his student password to view their Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers and more, Shenendehowa officials said.
Then he allegedly sent an e-mail at 1 p.m. Tuesday to High School Principal Donald Flynt, saying he had the database.
Flynt contacted police, who arrested the young man Thursday and charged him with computer trespass, unlawful possession of personal identification information and identity theft, all felonies. He will appear before Saratoga County Family Court at a later date, State Police said Friday."
And later.... "Investigators originally believed two students were involved in the alleged intrusion, but police determined the student arrested used two passwords, State Trooper Maureen Tuffey said."
So he accessed it and sent an email saying he had a copy of it. On top of that, he allegedly used someone else's account to get it. So we have using someone else's password - computer trespass. Taking a copy of the database (article's word, I suspect simple spreadsheet) - unlawful possession of personal identification information. The identity theft charge is likely added because that is a logically consistent step when you take the information.
Maybe the identity theft charge is over the top, but the others are 100% legit. Based on the information available. Or will the argument be made that the IT staff should have used biometrics to prevent him using another account? After all, everything else is the IT staff's fault...
Innocent until proven guilty exists only in court, not in public opinion. See OJ's first trial for a full explanation.
He deceitfully used someone else's name and password so he would not get caught
Kinda sounds like unauthorized access to a computer system to me.
And I forgot the punchline...cue arrest for violating state election law.
That doesn't help in states where recording devices are prohibited in the polling booth.
"I have INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF the machine switched it! I recorded it on my cell phone! "
I have a problem with anyone getting back more than they paid in taxes, but that could be because I'm a childless, unmarried, middle class guy who doesn't get any tax breaks.
It was probably the voice telling you when it updated. I turned that off and use it exclusively.
Don't forget bottleguy.com
I will not link that.
I'm going to comment because there is no -1 Pwned mod.
Not for student email. That is forbidden from above the state level.
You had better be 110% sure that an actual crime was committed before you try.
Example: It is 1:30 a.m. and you see someone carrying a tv out of a house and into a van. You do not recognize that person as a resident of the house in question. You haven't spoken to the owner of the house but you suspect a robbery is taking place. You call 911 but the van gets ready to leave before the police get there so you prevent the van from leaving by blocking the driveway or the road and refusing to let that person get around.
When the police arrive it turns out that the individual you stopped just purchased the tv from the owner of the house and was picking it up.
You just committed a crime. Whether it is actual kidnapping or just unlawful imprisonment I couldn't say, but you don't want any part of that.
That is one of the first claims. So don't magnify and you should be all good.