While that may be true citizens should have some sort of integrity about themselves. There was a time when, regardless of the abilities people had, that privacy was respected. This "Its the internet age you have no privacy" is bunk. We only have privacy regardless of whether its digital or not if people kept some sort of respect and integrity about themselves. However we live in an age where people are selfish as hell and could care less about smearing or stabbing someone in the back to get ahead or just watch the fires burn around them. Sad days.

I'd hope it wouldn't be useful at all. This is plain cockamamie crap. I don't care if my food tells you I was in Bangladesh. It isn't foolproof enough to use in any court of law. This is paramount to saying "We should have Thought Police like in Minority Report." Total BS. Technology should only be used in court battles to a point otherwise we're going to start putting more innocent people in jail than there already are and I'm sure that number is too high as it is even if we can't properly calculate; everyone in jail is innocent. / sarcasm I love IT/science, but using it unabashedly without 2nd guessing its uses or even the outcome is foolish. This issue is just like with the science freaks that think some day some special break through is going to happen that explains the entire universe. Not only is that foolish thinking its ridiculous thinking. Everyone knows the answer already. 42.

That was iron buddy.

Only if he can find a Johnson.

Ugh, that is what I get for drinking and typing. Line 10 should be: on full CCTV camera and has the DNA to prove it?

Huh, really? So the camera is just gonna grow arms and legs and stop the crime. Damn I want that camera because I'm gonna get rich quick! Cameras are way more worthless than cops. Cops peek just over cameras since they on occasion do stop a crime before it happens. But usually its to pick up the pieces or to harass you.

Personally the latter portion is where I hate cops the most. Some cops can be complete anal asshats but I think those are the young ones who seem to think their cock is bigger than yours and want to prove it with the power they wield; those same cops should be fired and put on an island to rot. I know some good people who are officers and they wear the uniform respectfully.

Also, wouldn't you just love to be the poor sap that gets screwed by some political stooge that knows you know something about him so he stages a crime on full CCTV camera and hast he DNA to prove it? Seeing as its now proved to be pretty "easy" to fake DNA. Which I'm sure has been used at some stage before the public knew about it. It would be very surprising to find that none of the major government agencies (CIA, FBI, Interpol) didn't know about any of this before hand. I'm just saying.

It may be patched, but if someone used the flaw around the time it was originally created (2001) then that is an awful long time for someone to have created another method into the machine after they've gotten in. Ever read The Cuckoo's Egg? Simply put if a hacker got into a system you'd think the first thing they do after escalating their privileges is to create a backdoor in case the one they came in was closed. Now...try to find that backdoor and any other apps the hacker put on the system. 8 years of residing on a system is a looong time, assuming they weren't found out beforehand.

Ugh.. 2nd line: should be *proven 4th line: should read: issues crop up around the planet

Well by the standards shared by this particular judge I would think this would/should hold up against an RIAA legal battle, unless of course your ISP "finds" the IP address "assigned" to your modem/router. Which technically is a total farce since its been prove that both MAC spoofing and IP address spoofing is very simple.

BUT...wtf does EU law have to do with US law?! NO JUDGE should be using another countries laws/case law in the US court system. I realize that simliar issues crop around the planet, but our judges should be following what laws we have not another. They should be applying US law and the US Constitution and if it doesn't exist in either law or the Constitution I'd have to check on what should be done. My suggestion would be for them to drop the case until something is legislated and/or notify the stated/federal legislature of this gap to actually utilize our freak'n system that is in place. This legislating from the bench pisses me off; although I didn't read the article (per procedure for posting) so I don't know.

well...I suppose it is working...odd. For some reason the preview mode didn't display the markup properly.

The courts understand this very well. That is why we are in the state we are in now with the justice system. While we have the "3 ring circus" [emphasis is mine] whom is to regulate the courts? One of the biggest issues is that once something is decided in the court system (mainly the Supreme Court) it is very hard to over turn later down the road and slowly allots more power to the judiciary (depending on the decision) or the federal government.

I'm reading a book now, while it may be slanted towards a certain political view, the view cites some very interesting case law which has shaped much of this country in the last 4-5 decades. Unfortunately this will near impossible to reverse and erodes what power the states may have had in making their own decisions (without the interference from the federal government). One of the biggest problems right now is that you've got people who believe that the federal government should do everything for us. Then others that believe in states' rights and the federal government should go f* off.

I suppose with my viewpoints of the Constitution and the our judiciary I'd be labeled as an "originalist." One of the problems that I've seen is that people go about their business non the wiser on what is going on in the government and in the courts. Thus both have been gaining power that was never theirs in the first place. This garbage of "reading between the lines" is utter crap. This is where the legalese comes into play and someone whips out Webster's dictionary and tries re-define what specific words in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights mean. People seem to forget that, as stated above, judges at the end of the day are just other normal people with baggage and/or side agendas. This leads to the crap we've seen getting past the court systems which boggles the mind since if they were following the letter of the law (both federal and local) most of these crap RIAA/MPAA law suits would be dealt with pretty quickly. However, IANAL so I don't know law in every 50 states; let alone every code in my state although I have read several sections when needed. Most law is not extremely hard to understand, but the interpretations seem to take on a life of their own once a lawyer or judge starts to review it. Personally I think they start seeing things that aren't there...this is usually done to get to whatever ends that person is looking for in the law.

Hell, look at the first Supreme Court judges appointed...several of them were quiet crazy and rambled, but a few still managed to vote and make decisions on several issues that affected our country.

note: I tried to separate the paragraphs...apparently the paragraph markup isn't working.

I was just talking to my fiance about this yesterday. I'm of the belief we would be in a much more technological society if we didn't have so much greed or worry about money in general. Its a radical idea, having no finances/money. But its an interesting one. Where does it say you have to have money in order to survive? Where does it say you have make money, exchange it for goods, etc etc. The point is it was an institution put in place a long long time ago and in my opinion only progresses because people put a value to a piece of paper or a precious metal...which when you think about it are metals that could be melted down and put to use in building other stuff. I do realize that money gives a balance to being able to provide for most peoples. It regulates the numbers of people being able to feed. Which in turn is a form of population control, as those unable to feed themselves most likely die. I'm not sure how one would feed an entire planet by mandating certain people do jobs for the greater good of the people. Seeing as someone would have to farm, someone would have to provide the food to the people, etc. A dramatic shift in the way stuff is delivered would have be devised. And from there I suppose the idea falls apart.

Keep in mind the above is a "what if" scenario...I'm of course going to work on Monday to make a living and in order to get my paycheck, but I'm just saying.

We're mining this planet pretty hard afaik not all of these metals generate fast enough for us to replace them. Granted I most likely won't be alive for this, but there will be generations of others that will be.

Sometimes I wonder if humanity will go through something similar from Star Trek (all the wars, etc then dumping money for a barter/free system). I doubt this since greed seems to be an inherent trait that is passed on from generation to generation. Which when I think about it greed is just selfishness molded into another form.

At any rate I think we'd have a lot more going for the space exploration and/or computer technology if this were swept away. Although I do realize that one of two things would most likely happen. Either a) people would get along and share as a community or b) everyone would be in the mindset of kill or be killed to survive mentality.

That is actually a decent idea and I would say that Christians should do the same. However, many do not fully understand what is written in the Bible. Heck I know I don't know everything in the Bible..no one does. Personally I don't know anyone who goes around preaching to people they know everything in the Bible.

I don't know about you, but most of our decent laws came more or less from the Bible. I'm sure there are plenty of people that would disagree with wanting to be married to multiple people, etc. That is probably the only big example I can think of off the top of my head. Heck, I don't know maybe I have you wrong, maybe you think its OK to randomly kill people, but I know most people would object to that. But I would pose the idea that there are probably more people that would not nor was it common in society that the founding fathers drew up the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I'm not quiet sure where you're pulling things from as "morally reprehensible" but you know everyone believes their own things. What you find morally reprehensible could be worlds apart from another. I know a friend whom is agnostic and would probably disagree in some areas and then agree in others with you in this matter.

There is also a certain way the Bible is setup and if you just read it like any other book certain understandings of various sections will probably go right past you. I'm not saying you have to be a theologian to read it, but usually having a discussion with someone that actually practices the religion might give you better insight.

But...from the sound of it you're just probing the book to find fallacies and other ammunition to prove a point in some argument. Which really is a poor reason to read a book. If that is the case sure you'll probably hate reading it and just find some reason to disgust you more about Christians, which is sad. Christians are just like any other person with their beliefs. I think some are mis-guided about how to go about speaking to people about their beliefs. Jesus didn't force his ideals on people that didn't care to listen. He did disrupt a few places and made scenes, but ultimately more or less had conferences with people in areas where people came if they wanted.