Slashdot Mirror

It wouldn't say it's IMPOSSIBLE for Google to know the SHA1 hash (torrent URL) of infected files.

If you're just trying to make the same tired argument about unlawful pirate sites that courts have struck down again and again, you might enjoy this page:
http://famguardian.org/publica...

But keep in mind, believing such utter BS *will* end up with you in prison. See:
https://www.irs.gov/tax-profes...

In addition to my other reply to this post, 22 U.S.C. 2705 provides justification for the claim made in the instructions, but does not clarify the issue for a third party.

There is no physical distinguishing characteristic between a passport issued to a national and one issued to a US Citizen.

The instructions provided by the state department are not legally admissible evidence, and are even self contradictory in this case. A Certificate of Naturalization proves nationality, not citizenship. The fact that most applicants for naturalization choose to become statutory US Citizens by filing 1040s and W-4s (or otherwise changing their domicile to within the statutory United States), does not convert this document into proof of citizenship.

See 22 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)
'The term “naturalization” means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.'

Here is some more info on naturalization in the form of a Cite List

republic

Passports, at least for the USA, do not prove citizenship. They merely prove nationality, a.k.a. allegiance. You may, or may not need a passport to leave the country, but if you wish to return, you will need to present one at the border. I know that all international air travel, via commercial aviation, departing the USA requires a passport per regulation. I am not quite so familiar with sea and land.

For more info on nationality see "Why A National"

republic

Stop it. You're making a fool of yourself. Speed limits are there for a very specific reason: that is the speed at which the average person can safely drive on that road. Or do you want the speed limit in your neighborhood raised to 50 instead of 25? The few cases in which speed limits are used to gather revenue have been well documented*.

Actually speed limits are primarly revenue generators. Unless you can think of a reason VT has removed your right to challenge the speed limit based on civil engineering guidelines after a year. Think about it; civil engineers say "this is the best limit" but VT says unless someone challenges it, that doesn't matter. Tell me again that's not done in the name of revenue.

Research on the other hand has shown that average people are prefectly capable of determining how fast to drive their car. Indeed, that's exactly how speed limits are supposed to be set; by looking at what speed people pick for themselves without any limits and then choosing the speed which covers the 85th percentile.

Further, as the repeat of a History channel show pointed out, the autobahn is constructed much differently than roads in the U.S. The autobahn is 27" thick which means it is much less susceptible to cracking or warping. In the U.S., road thickness is not more than 16" and that is only in the best of conditions. Maintenance of the autobahn is also much more rigorous compared to U.S. roads. Living in PA, I can attest to the poor state of our roads that we regularly are rated last or next to last in the nation.

Someone else pointed out our roads are designed for 120MPH at most, yet speed limits in PA are about half of that. Oh, and I also lived in PA, and yes, it was perfectly safe from a road condition point of view to do 80MPH. I did this regualarly on I95, I695, I476, I76 and I276. The main problem from a traffic point of view was heavy volume and people driving in the middle lane on the six lane poritions.

In addition, when driving on the autobahn, you are driving the car. Not sipping your coffee, eating a burger or talking on the phone. You're driving. As the story goes, German car designers couldn't understand why people in the U.S. were asking for cupholders in their cars.

Good old anecdote. NOt that I haven't seen stupidity, I just don't see how doing somethign stupid matters when talking about the difference between 55 and 80. Both are going to be bad. Of course I tend to think that if you tell people what they must do in each and every case, they tend not to think as much. When leads to things like people trying to drive 55 in a blizzard.

Besides, as everyone knows, the faster you drive, the more fuel you burn and the less mileage you get.

What business is that of yours?

What rights? There is no right to drive a car. Driving a car is a privilege because of the dangers involved in driving one.

Riding a horse while pulling a carriage is dangerous too. And there is a right to drive; it's actually the right to travel using the common means of the day. Government does not grant rights, we have them. http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Freedom/Travel/RightToTravel.htm

Saying something is dangerous and may cause harm to others isn't enough to take away one's rights. If you believe that, than you probably agree with Britian and its attempt to ban kitchen knives. Personally, I call that tyranny.

You are essentially driving a killing machine and it is only because of the skill of the person behind the wheel that prevents an accident.

No, if I were driving a killing machine I'd surely have flamethrowers, grendade launchers, pointy metal sticks and machine guns. Of is a knife in your mind nothing more than a killing stick?

*Note in the article that the cops give people a ten mile leeway over the posted speed limit before giving them a ticket.

Doesn't sound like the

Agreed. For example, American corporations were originally granted charters in order to accomplish large goals for the public good, that individual citizens would never have the resources to accomplish. Like constructing the Panama Canal. But corporations could only be "incorporated" as entities when they served the public good. When they don't - or when they completely pillage the public good - they're supposed to have their corporate charter yanked, and thereby be banished screaming back into the void from whence they came. People have forgotten that. They have forgotten most of the important stuff. For example, how many people would sit around whining about Bush if everybody knew this? Or this? I've researched the facts in law behind this stuff and it's rock-solid. The folks at SuiJuris.net are researching more on it every day.

Everyone who is a citizen of the required age is allowed to vote, even if they're incarcerated.

It always bugs me when I see mention of this. It's something that I learned by distant example while reading Atlas Shrugged (choice quote below); all the US government needs to do is make a felony out of something innocuous and enjoyed predominantly by a certain class/race/lifestyle (like smoking pot), and BANG! All of a sudden, there's nobody left who smokes pot who isn't a felon, and therefore the inefficient, ineffective, society-destroying laws like the War on (some) Drugs are allowed to continue because nobody can legally vote for their removal.

We have too many laws. I want to do something about that--but what can I, an individual, do?

Atlas Shrugged quote from here:

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Most people are unaware of the fact that there are 2 types of citizenship... US and State, and it makes a HELL of a lot of difference to understand the distinction

Why you are a US National

Also, the first 10 articles of the Bill or Rights are NOT amendments, they are declatory articles as stated in the preamble of the Bill of Rights.

"The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution. "

So, just like the first amendment can't be altered or abolished, the 2nd, 5th, 9th, or 10th can't either. None of them can! They are not rights granted to you by a government, but rights that you were born with as a human being.

Get learned people
http://www.constitution.org/

I'm not trolling, hating, or being irritable... I'm just sick of hearing pundits, coworkers, and friends spout off what the constitution says... when they haven't even read the thing!

enjoy all

Not completely off topic, but this is totally legit, if these 2 claim priveleges under the US constitution as US citizens.

Very few people realize the difference between State Citizenship (commonly referred to as being a US national) and US citizenship.

I'll cut to the chase, but the main difference is that a US national has rights guaranteed and protected by the constitution, while a US citizen has priveleges granted to them by the federal government. Like every privelege, it can be revoked at any time.

Some links to get you started here and
here

The funny thing is, I remember a SNL skit by christopher walkin where he made about having dual citizenship, US and florida. At the time I couldn't stop laughing...

Enjoy :)

Not completely off topic, but this is totally legit, if these 2 claim priveleges under the US constitution as US citizens.

Very few people realize the difference between State Citizenship (commonly referred to as being a US national) and US citizenship.

I'll cut to the chase, but the main difference is that a US national has rights guaranteed and protected by the constitution, while a US citizen has priveleges granted to them by the federal government. Like every privelege, it can be revoked at any time.

Some links to get you started here and
here

The funny thing is, I remember a SNL skit by christopher walkin where he made about having dual citizenship, US and florida. At the time I couldn't stop laughing...

Enjoy :)