> How are idiots like Janet even allowed to be secretary of anything? I don't know whats worse having such thoughts or publically admitting to having had them.
I think of many horrible, or impossible, or absurd things. I often admit them. And sometimes they make their way into popular culture. Can you say "Fish fingers and custard"?
The worst thing you can do is not think of a thing. When that thing comes to pass anyway, you get blind-sided. And blamed for not thinking of it. Even if you could not have done anything about it.
The second worst thing you can do is to not admit you thought of it. When it inevitably comes out that you DID think of it, people call you names.
But when you think of it, and admit you thought of it, when the name calling begins, you can serenely reply, "and you heard that from where, again?"
Do you think that, perhaps, being attacked might tip them off that their server has been compromised? Perhaps when nothing else - even direct contact by harmed parties - failed to produce action?
In a recent Florida case, after an employee sued her employer for wrongful termination, the company counterclaimed that plaintiff violated section 1030(a)(2)(C) by making personal use of the Internet at work -- checking Facebook and sending personal email -- in violation of company policy. See Lee v. PMSI, Inc., No. 8:10-cv-2904-T-23TBM, 2011 WL 1742028 (M.D. Fla. May 6, 2011). The district court dismissed the counterclaim, but it could not have done so if "exceeds authorized access" included violations of private computer use policies.
> or bad for consumers (because it makes things less safe for companies).
If Congress (or lobbyists acting through congress) really really wants to criminalize TOS violations, they can try to pass a bill that explicitly states that.
Or they could just try again with the fuzzy language and call it CISPA.
> At the moment, guns are not pointed at the borders preventing Americans from leaving,
At the moment, I require a passport to be allowed to leave the country. A passport is a document that the government can and on occasion has denied to citizens, for instance when owing child support.
Attempting to cross a border at a crossing station, without a passport will cause force to be brought to bear upon you.
> it is still possible to stand on any street corner of America, holding a sign which proclaims "The President of this country is an ass and needs to leave office!"
Odd... you'd think that a publisher could dictate terms to his retailors. Like, perhaps, "you and your subsidiaries cannot sell 'used' copies of this game for X period of time."
Or they could announce that they will have DLC available on day 1 for customers with verifiable new copies and on day X for all valid copies of the game ("new" or "used").
If I can think of this after 2 minutes, consider what a game publisher could do with 6 months to think about the problem.
> Given the nature of how the government operates in some environments, the enforcement of this law, could easily include volumes of procedures like "Company must hire outside contractor. Company must document collection methods. Company must guarantee validity of samples collected. Company must generate a 100 page report. Company must... etc, etc etc." This can be a significant drain on productivity.
You can achieve the same specialization goal by... hiring a contractor to tell you what needs to be done.
The government already uses contractors for specialized tasks like laboratory work. And there is a centralized location for pollution data.... that would be the EPA.
Even worse, you are advocating a scenario where the government agent comes in and starts ordering the company around. The government agent has to cover umpteen different KINDS of business, and knows nothing of your company. He is liable to issue orders that are conflicting, irrational, impossible, and/or ineffective. In what way is this more efficient, except that the company in question has not spent effort to comply with the law?
> If the company is found to be non-compliant, production is immediately halted.
In what way does it become more efficient for the company to have its production line halted due to government fiat (agent says you're not in compliance) than it is for a company to have a means (called by you "red tape") to inform the government that it has complied, is coming into compliance, or is remediating on its own?
And why do you assume that companies are always believed when they do?
> The opposite situation could also occur, where the consequence of the deregulatory action results in the manufacturers no longer being forced to comply with environmental regulations, and noone collects samples, and tests the soil, which would result in pollution, due to the fact that noone is looking for it, or aware of it, and the new incentive to generate it.
The EPA is currently underfunded. There is no "opposite situation could occur", since it is ongoing, and without deregulatory action having occurred. You wish to exaggerate that condition?
I believe that the current regulations exist, in their myriad red-tapedness, because companies complained about the cost of government inspection regimes and insisted that they could "self police". Thus, the government "could save money" by taking action only when someone blew the whistle on a company.
That is, the companies put themselves in this position through intense lobbying.
I appreciate your learned reference. But the victim of the patent troll, and the victim of the Dane have only one choice, to pay or not to pay.
The best outcome is always to win free of the Dane, of course. But if the victory be Pyrrhic, are you in the end better off than if you had slunk softly into the night?
Of note, though... a better outcome yet is for you and he to fight, for I bear not the cost of the fight, yet gather the fruit thereof. (quoth the raven).
For the purposes of US Criminal law concerning terrorism,[28] weapons of mass destruction are defined as:
any destructive device defined as any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses[29]
any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors
any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector
any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life[30]
Consider that any anti-armor weapon is going to meet those standards, then by those standards any army so equipped has WMDs. The black powder charge for a re-enactor's civil war cannon counts.
A 2006 fox news article noted that 500 chemical weapons had been found in Iraq since 2003. You may think 500 is a lot, but think about using it in war. It won't go far. Horrible, yes. But not on the scale of an international threat by a sovereign nation. Terror threat, perhaps. But not a war threat.
> Considering that he is basically a mass murderer...
Please cite specific examples where his actions have caused deaths. "Potential deaths" and "threats" do not count.
Also, please cease conflating treason with mass murder. Otherwise, you excuse any conceivable oppression under a fancy version of "think of the children".
> I am opposed to the death penalty except for treason.
Which is another way of saying that you are not opposed to the death penalty, particularly in light of your previous argument implying that mass murderers should ALSO get the death penalty.
Hey, man. I can grow some killer tomatoes in that stuff! Though I might have to get some advice from John Astin on how to keep them from getting away from me.
> they decided to book and pay for a booth.... 'I thought it was a bit strange, but in the afternoon, the pieces fell into place
This is an example of either poor clipping, or intentionally inflammatory clipping. From having RTFA, the pirate party had called to get answers on a couple of practical issues, and the person they talked to sounded vague and extremely stressed out. THAT is what Troberg, as quoted in the actual article, thought strange.
Slashdot Mirror
What, posting as an AC so we don't see how few digits are in your account ID and judge your comment thereby?
And no, Fish fingers and custard wasn't one of mine.
> How are idiots like Janet even allowed to be secretary of anything? I don't know whats worse having such thoughts or publically admitting to having had them.
I think of many horrible, or impossible, or absurd things. I often admit them. And sometimes they make their way into popular culture. Can you say "Fish fingers and custard"?
The worst thing you can do is not think of a thing. When that thing comes to pass anyway, you get blind-sided. And blamed for not thinking of it. Even if you could not have done anything about it.
The second worst thing you can do is to not admit you thought of it. When it inevitably comes out that you DID think of it, people call you names.
But when you think of it, and admit you thought of it, when the name calling begins, you can serenely reply, "and you heard that from where, again?"
I would think that many governments would be happy to learn details of *what way* their computer is compromised.
And if they aren't eager to learn those details, I am sure that the AP might be.
> it's hard to find a programmer that's been angered deeply enough to engage in that kind of investigating.
But it is much easier to find one amenable to being paid to engage in that kind of investigating.
Do you think that, perhaps, being attacked might tip them off that their server has been compromised? Perhaps when nothing else - even direct contact by harmed parties - failed to produce action?
From the ruling:
In a recent Florida case, after an employee sued her employer for
wrongful termination, the company counterclaimed that plaintiff violated
section 1030(a)(2)(C) by making personal use of the Internet at work --
checking Facebook and sending personal email -- in violation of company
policy. See Lee v. PMSI, Inc., No. 8:10-cv-2904-T-23TBM, 2011 WL
1742028 (M.D. Fla. May 6, 2011). The district court dismissed the counterclaim,
but it could not have done so if "exceeds authorized access"
included violations of private computer use policies.
> or bad for consumers (because it makes things less safe for companies).
If Congress (or lobbyists acting through congress) really really wants to criminalize TOS violations, they can try to pass a bill that explicitly states that.
Or they could just try again with the fuzzy language and call it CISPA.
No, no... that's not the reason nobody answers our calls. ... it's because we're made out of meat.
> At the moment, guns are not pointed at the borders preventing Americans from leaving,
At the moment, I require a passport to be allowed to leave the country. A passport is a document that the government can and on occasion has denied to citizens, for instance when owing child support.
Attempting to cross a border at a crossing station, without a passport will cause force to be brought to bear upon you.
> it is still possible to stand on any street corner of America, holding a sign which proclaims "The President of this country is an ass and needs to leave office!"
3 words: Free Speech Zone.
When you throw out blanket statements, you sometimes find you've covered up a contrary molehill to disturb your picnic.
> and as long as they don't use any of your copyrighted text or images you have no legal recourse.
If I had moderator points, I'd mod you up. This is definitely a transformative use of the copyrighted material, and thus under Fair Use.
Odd... you'd think that a publisher could dictate terms to his retailors. Like, perhaps, "you and your subsidiaries cannot sell 'used' copies of this game for X period of time."
Or they could announce that they will have DLC available on day 1 for customers with verifiable new copies and on day X for all valid copies of the game ("new" or "used").
If I can think of this after 2 minutes, consider what a game publisher could do with 6 months to think about the problem.
I pay my words double, to mean exactly what I intend them to mean.
So: Wibble.
> A more useful question would be "how can we prevent this in the future?". There is no shortage of unscrupulous lawyers and corporate executives.
And here I was thinking that the makers of Torgo's Executive Powder would never fear a shortage of raw materials.
It occurred to me that 1600 unique words would be close to 10% of man people's working, day-to-day vocabulary.
(Cue: jokes about being 60% or more of some people's vocabulary)
On the plus side, the vocabulary list repeats a lot. On the minus side, entire messages (may?) get lost if a forbidden word gets used.
And another thing, that I find quite interesting: The list is English. I had not known that English is one of two "official languages" of Pakistan.
Perhaps they are trying to encourage the makers of Urdu porn?
> Given the nature of how the government operates in some environments, the enforcement of this law, could easily include volumes of procedures like "Company must hire outside contractor. Company must document collection methods. Company must guarantee validity of samples collected. Company must generate a 100 page report. Company must ... etc, etc etc." This can be a significant drain on productivity.
You can achieve the same specialization goal by ... hiring a contractor to tell you what needs to be done.
The government already uses contractors for specialized tasks like laboratory work. And there is a centralized location for pollution data. ... that would be the EPA.
Even worse, you are advocating a scenario where the government agent comes in and starts ordering the company around. The government agent has to cover umpteen different KINDS of business, and knows nothing of your company. He is liable to issue orders that are conflicting, irrational, impossible, and/or ineffective. In what way is this more efficient, except that the company in question has not spent effort to comply with the law?
> If the company is found to be non-compliant, production is immediately halted.
In what way does it become more efficient for the company to have its production line halted due to government fiat (agent says you're not in compliance) than it is for a company to have a means (called by you "red tape") to inform the government that it has complied, is coming into compliance, or is remediating on its own?
And why do you assume that companies are always believed when they do?
> The opposite situation could also occur, where the consequence of the deregulatory action results in the manufacturers no longer being forced to comply with environmental regulations, and noone collects samples, and tests the soil, which would result in pollution, due to the fact that noone is looking for it, or aware of it, and the new incentive to generate it.
The EPA is currently underfunded. There is no "opposite situation could occur", since it is ongoing, and without deregulatory action having occurred. You wish to exaggerate that condition?
I believe that the current regulations exist, in their myriad red-tapedness, because companies complained about the cost of government inspection regimes and insisted that they could "self police". Thus, the government "could save money" by taking action only when someone blew the whistle on a company.
That is, the companies put themselves in this position through intense lobbying.
I appreciate your learned reference. But the victim of the patent troll, and the victim of the Dane have only one choice, to pay or not to pay.
The best outcome is always to win free of the Dane, of course. But if the victory be Pyrrhic, are you in the end better off than if you had slunk softly into the night?
Of note, though... a better outcome yet is for you and he to fight, for I bear not the cost of the fight, yet gather the fruit thereof. (quoth the raven).
The ones that advocate deregulating industry "and letting the market sort it out" certainly are not defending the environment any, are they?
From Wikipedia:
For the purposes of US Criminal law concerning terrorism,[28] weapons of mass destruction are defined as:
any destructive device defined as any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses[29]
any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors
any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector
any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life[30]
Consider that any anti-armor weapon is going to meet those standards, then by those standards any army so equipped has WMDs. The black powder charge for a re-enactor's civil war cannon counts.
A 2006 fox news article noted that 500 chemical weapons had been found in Iraq since 2003. You may think 500 is a lot, but think about using it in war. It won't go far. Horrible, yes. But not on the scale of an international threat by a sovereign nation. Terror threat, perhaps. But not a war threat.
If only I had mod points...
+1 "closer to source information"
Could you cite some cases of EULAs being held up in court? Have any of them made it to the level of precedent?
> Considering that he is basically a mass murderer...
Please cite specific examples where his actions have caused deaths. "Potential deaths" and "threats" do not count.
Also, please cease conflating treason with mass murder. Otherwise, you excuse any conceivable oppression under a fancy version of "think of the children".
> I am opposed to the death penalty except for treason.
Which is another way of saying that you are not opposed to the death penalty, particularly in light of your previous argument implying that mass murderers should ALSO get the death penalty.
Hey, man. I can grow some killer tomatoes in that stuff! Though I might have to get some advice from John Astin on how to keep them from getting away from me.
> they decided to book and pay for a booth. ... 'I thought it was a bit strange, but in the afternoon, the pieces fell into place
This is an example of either poor clipping, or intentionally inflammatory clipping. From having RTFA, the pirate party had called to get answers on a couple of practical issues, and the person they talked to sounded vague and extremely stressed out. THAT is what Troberg, as quoted in the actual article, thought strange.