On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Gilles Chehade wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 11:19:40AM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Lars Hansson wrote:
>>
>> >On 8/28/07, Die Gestalt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Why doesn't he run the monitoring software in a virtual machine?
>> >
>> >Because it would violate his parole? Who cares anyway?
>> >If you can't do the time don't do the crime.
>>
>> We should all care, because there's actually an important question
>> buried in this: to what extent is it acceptable for 'the government' to
>> demand that someone make substantial or expensive changes in their life
>> merely for its convenience?
>
>It is acceptable to the extent that the guy did something illegal, is
>being punished for it and should consider himself happy that he is
>allowed to use a computer still.
>
>If he were using his ubuntu in a constructive way, he would not be
>forced to run Windows today. Tough luck.
But, as I understand the issue, this is _not_ part of his specified
punishment -- it's just a side-effect of the manner in which the
government wants to impose a portion of his punishment. There appears
to be no real reason for it other than the government's convenience.
You appear to be arguing that someone convicted of a crime should lose
rights under the law beyond those which the law specifies as being taken
away. Is this a correct inference?
Whether or not you hold that opinion, I certainly don't agree with it --
it's essentially encouraging vigilanteeism. Anyone who thinks that the
penalties specified by law don't go far enough should work to change the
law, not just ignore it.
Dave
--
Dave Anderson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
