I guess you think you're breaking my heart or making me angry or something....
Nope. Don't really care, to be honest. I was just pointing out that your opinions are exactly that - YOUR opinion and not necessarily the views held by others here.
So what you're doing to me is every bit as pointless as replying to the King of Idiots in the first place.
Once again, that's strictly your opinion and it's not one I subscribe to. I don't believe it's pointless to showcase Blue's incorrect statements to other readers.
To be honest, I think your constant bitching about people replying to Blue is actually the pointless endeavor. If it bugs you that much, don't read them or write a Greasemonkey script to hide all replies to hidden comments or whatever.
Re: Re: Re: Re: here come the nitwits replying to the troll ...
Although he's right that giving the trolls here attention just makes them come back for more.
Yeah, that is probably true. On the other hand, the constant reporting of Blue hasn't deterred him one iota either.
I do firmly believe that incorrect speech should be countered with more speech and I, like Roger, don't do it for the benefit of the original troll, but for the benefit of those who come along and read these comments at a later date.
I've even responded to Blue on articles that were two or three years old, because he was going back to comment on them in an attempt to get in the last word.
Yeah, I was thinking in terms of an airplane, helicopter or drone viewing into a house through a window from an angle that normally wouldn't be available to a normal person standing on the sidewalk or street.
I know that there's not much expectation of privacy in your own backyard, although United States v. Vargas has pushed back this a little bit by declaring the warrantless video surveillance of a man's front door with camera mounted outside his property to be unconstitutional.
The cops don't need a warrant to fly over your property in a plane or a helicopter, and the cameras they can attach to those aircraft are every bit as hi-tech and intrusive as what you can put on drone.
Has this ever been tested in court?
In Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) the majority opinion argued that a person has an expectation of privacy in his or her home and therefore, the government cannot conduct unreasonable searches, even with technology that does not enter the home.
It seems that using hi-tech cameras from airplanes is something that is "not commonly available to the public", which was a deciding factor in Kyllo.
My firewall sits between the internet and the rest of my network, so it protects everything attached to my LAN, regardless of what OS they're running.
Ah, ok. I'm not sure that would work real well for me. I also have 3 other adults who live in my house who connect through the router with various devices and I'm not really looking to be a nanny for them and their devices.
I was thinking more in terms of a personal firewall at the device level. I'll have to check out Comodo, that the AC above recommended.
Many linux distros provide ip tables functionality for this purpose.
I think they all do and I know I can go that route if I really want to, but like I said above, I'm a bit lazy and not really wanting to be editing text files or what not all the time. What I was hoping for is a GUI program that monitored the connections where you could simply select a connection and set it "block" or "allow" or "allow once" kind of thing. I've checked out a couple of the Linux offerings on this, but most seemed to be pretty complicated and overkill for what I'm looking to do. I might have to dust off Anjunta and try to write my own, I guess.
And since I rarely use Windows outside of work, I was wondering if something similar was out there for Windows too.
Typically, one firewall is used for an entire network rather than residing on each machine.
Yes, my broadband router at home does have firewall features on it, but that won't stop outbound connections from my computer at all. Nor will help if I connect my laptop at other places, like work. I'm talking about a personal firewall to keep an eye on what software is making connections from my computer that I would rather not allow.
I'm of the belief that the Bill of Rights applies to anyone and everyone who has dealings with the US government.
Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is the word "citizen" used. The words used are "person" or "persons". The word "citizen" is used specifically in later Amendments to limit their application to actual citizens.
Obviously, many courts do not agree with my contention.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seems rock-solid current law to me. Why does it distress you?
To continue on with my last point. Copyright is not a common-law right and nor is it a natural right.
Congress and the Supreme Court have made this clear:
That an author at common law has a property in his manuscript, and may obtain redress against anyone who deprives him of it or by obtaining a copy endeavors to realize a profit by its publication cannot be doubted, but this is a very different right from that which asserts a perpetual and exclusive property in the future publication of the work after the author shall have published it to the world.
The argument that a literary man is as much entitled to the product of his labor as any other member of society cannot be controverted. And the answer is that he realizes this product in the sale of his works when first published.[...]
Congress, then, by this act, instead of sanctioning an existing right, as contended for, created it.
- Wheaton v. Peters
The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based upon any natural right that the author has in his writings, for the Supreme Court has held that such rights as he has are purely statutory rights, but upon the ground that the welfare of the public will be served and progress of science and useful arts will [be] promoted by securing to authors for limited periods the exclusive rights to their writings. The Constitution does not establish copyrights, but provides that Congress shall have the power to grant such rights if it thinks best. Not primarily for the benefit of the author, but primarily for the benefit of the public, such rights are given. Not that any particular class of citizens, however worthy, may benefit, but because the policy is believed to be for the benefit of the great body of people, in that it will stimulate writing and invention, to give some bonus to authors and inventors.
- House Report on the Copyright Act of 1909
The first emphasis is SCOTUS recognizing that copyright differs from traditional property rights for the exact reason I stated - it extends past the transfer of ownership.
The next two emphases are SCOTUS and Congress stating that copyright is purely a creature of statute, as I also stated.