Slashdot Mirror

@AC Thanks for this info. I didn't know you can easily review wiki history. I confirmed it by plugging the wiki info into https://voterlookup.elections.... Looks like "Honestmedia" has been busy.
@niaxilin If there is a way to edit my post, I'll gladly remove that paragraph. I was only reporting on my observations, which at least have been confirmed.

Polling stations should have (and probably do have) policies and procedures for handling an out-of-area voter.

Uhh no. The County that I work in as a poll worker has 16 different towns, 7 villages, and 1 city. Most of those political subdivisions are further divided into districts. That's just at the local level. At the State level the county is represented by four different Assembly Districts. At the Federal level we have two different Congressional Districts.

It is physically impossible to have ballots on hand for every conceivable voter within our County, never mind trying to accommodate people from different Counties or States. Civics is a two way street and a voter has the obligation to learn where his or her polling place is located. There are websites that make this virtually idiot proof and your Board of Elections will send you postcards as well.

And we all know WHY the USPS is broke. Not because it can't deliver letters, but because it's being forced by Congress to prefund its pension/healthcare/workers comp funds to an absurd extent

All the more reasons to privatize it — thus setting it free from Congress' meddling, is not it?

The point, however, was that nobody is suggesting, the stamp price should go up because fewer people use the service (thanks to e-mail)... And that is the argument the Illiberal in TFA is making: raise the gas-tax because people buy less of it (thanks to improvements in fuel-economy).

Bridges have a natural monopoly over their local environment.

"Natural monopoly" is a myth — perpetuated by government types with vested interest in expanding government's power. It is particularly obvious in case of bridges — building another one next to an existing one is not substantially harder, than building the first one: you don't even need to exercise "eminent domain" for most of the distance (above the river)...

With that in mind, why would a private bridge owner have any incentive to lower prices?

For the same reason, your local pizzeria does not charge you $1000 for a pie — for fear, you'll go elsewhere. The attraction of "free" crossing is balanced against the additional time it would take to make use of it — and attracts people willing to wait instead of spending money. The number of such people is determined largely by the additional delay of the free option. For some people $1 of price-difference is enough, for others it would take $5. But the cost-consideration is there. Once bridges are independently-owned and compete, their owners will have a financial incentive to keep the traffic flowing (and expanding). Some competitors might even undertake to build a new crossing — when they figure, such an investment has a good chance of paying off...

Come on, if New York's toll bridges and tunnels were all owned by the same private corporation, you too would be screaming against their monopoly. But if that monopoly is the government's, then it is Ok with you somehow...

And btw it might be decent in some parts of the country but $30/hr is a shitty wage in NYC.

Yeah, that's nominal wage — add bonuses and "overtime", etc. and it becomes a very-well paying job, which is impossible to get without "connections" (note, how this "help wanted" listing does not even advertise full-time toll-collection opportunities).

Regardless, whether the booth-workers are under- or over-paid, the building and maintenance of bridges and tunnels can be made by competing corporations and thus must not be done by the government...

There are still thousands of crazy-sounding laws on the books all across the country - many in places like CA and NY which so many people consider "progressive".

In New York, it's still, to this day, illegal to break the sabbath. http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=@SLGBS0A2+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=45235476+&TARGET=VIEW

That's not what you get.

Is it cheaper to hire an uninsured, inexperienced driver in an unmaintained car, or an experienced driver in a well-maintained vehicle with fully comprehensive insurance?

Taxis do not carry fully comprehensive insurance. Each taxi cab is created as a separate corporation. It balances its books every night, pays daily fees for maintenance services, dispatch services, gas and other operating costs, and declares and immediately pays any remaining as a dividend to the corporate parent. The "1-car taxi corp" effectively maintains zero assets. It buys only the state-required minimum insurance. If the taxi driver runs over you, there's nothing to claim but that minimum insurance even if accident results in permanent paralysis and a need for lifelong medical care. New York presently requires a $100k liability. Washington DC sets an incredibly low $25,000 floor.

Yes, this is common. Yes, it's been litigated and upheld by the courts. Read Walkovsky v. Carlton, 18 NY2d 414 (1966). It's just another way that corporations structure themselves privatize the profits while shifting the cost of their actions to an unconsenting someone else. In this case, they shift the cost of their driving accidents onto the victims of those accidents.

That's why the article says this: "For legal reasons, the ShareRoller won't engage when you're at a standstill, so I had to pedal a couple of times before I could engage the 1.0 horsepower motor with a handlebar-mounted throttle."

The law banning electric bikes does not apply unless the motor "is capable of propelling the device without human power." Here, it's not (although it doesn't sound like it needs much human power).

That still doesn't mean this is legal to use. It's possible the Citibike agreement bans (or will ban) their use. Probably won't result in a fine, but it could result in a ban. And money damages if the device does cause excess tire wear. But the general NYC ban on electric bicycles doesn't apply.

FWIW, of the 17 co-sponsors of Bill A07671, only two: David DiPietro of Warsaw, NY, and Phil Steck of Schenectady, NY are outside of the greater NYC area.

So what?

"Roughly 64% of the state's population lives in the New York City metropolitan area"

FWIW, of the 17 co-sponsors of Bill A07671, only two: David DiPietro of Warsaw, NY, and Phil Steck of Schenectady, NY are outside of the greater NYC area.

So what?

"Roughly 64% of the state's population lives in the New York City metropolitan area"

FWIW, of the 17 co-sponsors of Bill A07671, only two: David DiPietro of Warsaw, NY, and Phil Steck of Schenectady, NY are outside of the greater NYC area.

So what?

"Roughly 64% of the state's population lives in the New York City metropolitan area"

I find it hard to think of any upstate politician who would support any restriction on 3d printing right now.

FWIW, of the 17 co-sponsors of Bill A07671, only two: David DiPietro of Warsaw, NY, and Phil Steck of Schenectady, NY are outside of the greater NYC area.

I find it hard to think of any upstate politician who would support any restriction on 3d printing right now.

FWIW, of the 17 co-sponsors of Bill A07671, only two: David DiPietro of Warsaw, NY, and Phil Steck of Schenectady, NY are outside of the greater NYC area.

I find it hard to think of any upstate politician who would support any restriction on 3d printing right now.

FWIW, of the 17 co-sponsors of Bill A07671, only two: David DiPietro of Warsaw, NY, and Phil Steck of Schenectady, NY are outside of the greater NYC area.

They are only 'illegal' if the federally mandated label states that they are of one class of power output and the device exceeds that stated output level. Simply changing the label to indicate that the device is a Class 4 instead of Class 3R or Class 3B device brings them into compliance. However, there are still local ordinances that require operators of lasers to be licensed and the installation to comply with said ordinances. The FAA also has certain notification requirements for use of lasers in an outdoor aerial display venue.

That would depend on what jurisdiction you are under.

In NY you have: Article 156 of the penal code.

156.05:

A person is guilty of unauthorized use of a computer when he or she knowingly uses, causes to be used, or accesses a computer, computer service, or computer network without authorization.

and 156.00.8:

"Without authorization" means to use or to access a computer, computer service or computer network without the permission of the owner or lessor or someone licensed or privileged by the owner or lessor where such person knew that his or her use or access was without permission or after actual notice to such person that such use or access was without permission.

Knowing a username/password combination doesn't make you authorized, you also need permission from the owner. Other states have similar laws, and I would suspect a bunch of other countries do too but I'm not going to attempt an exhaustive search.

It forbids the legislature from limiting free speech.

As much as I would like to believe that you are right, I'm not too sure on that...

[Freedom of speech and press; criminal prosecutions for libel]

8. Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.

Every citizen may freely speak. How do they know you are a citizen if you are anonymous? Further, it could then be argued that by intentionally speaking anonymously, you are "abusing that right".

Of course, I'm no constitutional lawyer, so perhaps I (hopefully) have interpreted that incorrectly.

Yea, I mostly just didn't like the headline because it's wrong. But that's what I get for reading the f* bill! (BTW, go read it, it's shorter than the Slashdot blurb about it: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S06779&term=2011&Summary=Y&Text=Y)

And apparently one of the sponsors of the bill is pissed because someone was attacking him anonymously. ( http://betabeat.com/2012/05/new-york-lawmakers-surprised-at-blowback-over-proposed-anonymous-comment-ban/ ) That is exactly my point though. Killing things like YouTube or 4Chan is bad, and they won't die anyway, they will just never be anywhere near NY jurisdiction. So there this doesn't end up doing anything at all to help "save the children" in the end anyway.

http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/James-D-Conte/contact/

http://www.nysenate.gov/senator/thomas-f-omara/contact

Everyone, not just NY'ers, send them feedback. But use an obviously fake name, address, phone, email. Tell them you did this to prove a point. Don't make the message threatening - try to be informative. If they get thousands of messages, maybe....just maybe...they'll get the point.

(I know they won't, but it least I feel like I'm doing something about it)

Actually, they're not allowed to post Level 1 sex offenders online.
http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/SomsSUBDirectory/search_index.jsp

You can search for the New York State Sex Offender Registration Act to find out what that is.

I checked the postings to find horror stories of 20-year-old guys busted for having sex with their 16-year-old girlfriends, but I couldn't find any.

These guys seem to be real creeps, having sex with 13-year-old girls, 9-year-old boys, etc.

I wonder what the recidivism rate is. Unless it's very low I wouldn't feel safe letting them out at all.

If they really are likely to re-offend, I'd like to see them kept in a non-punitive, least-restrictive environment. Same with anybody who's convicted of crimes that are a danger to society. Violent crimes too.

But then we'd need rational laws, and I don't see that anywhere on the horizon.

The actual court filing by the insurance companies says:

Notwithstanding, the claims set forth in the Class Action Complaints filed against SCEA and the other Sony Defendants, as well as the miscellaneous claims, arising out of the cyber attacks on the PSN and SOE Network and the unauthorized access to and theft of the named plaintiffs and putative class members' personal identification and financial information, do not assert claims for "bodily injury," "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" so as to entitle SCEA to defense and/or indemnity under the ZAIC Primary Policy.

In other words, Sony didn't buy coverage against a liability of this type. They were covered if the product actually injured someone or damaged their property (shocked someone or caught on fire, for example) but not for an indirect financial loss.

What they needed was an "errors and omissions policy". This covers financial screwups. Banks, accountants, tax advisors, and brokers usually carry such policies, because they handle other people's money. What Sony's people didn't realize is that, by handling so many credit card numbers (and, apparently, improperly holding more credit card info than they should have), they had the exposure of a financial institution.

Any merchant who holds onto credit card info for recurring transactions needs that coverage. Merchants who just pass credit card data to the bank for a single transaction, but don't keep it on file, are less at risk.

For example, simply peeing in public, in some states, is enough to have you arrested and classified as a sexual predator.

The mod-up to +4, "Insightful" demands, I think, some minimal show of proof that what you say is true.

Below is the public registry for New York state, searchable by name, county or zip code. It is restricted to Level 2 and 3 offenders.

Level 2 registrants remain on the list for 20 years, Level 3 for life.

The rap sheet typically includes the age of the victim, the charges on which the registrant was convicted, aggravating circumstances, and conditions of release.

For example:

Victim, female. 12 yrs old

Force used:

Choked
Threat
Hit with hand/fist/club

Search Public Registry of Sex Offenders

I've tried to look into the details of this and this is what I've come up with.
A woman named "Romano" is suing Steelcase Inc for some kind of personal injury and is seeking damages to pay her for "loss of enjoyment of life". The judge granted Steelcase Inc the ability to look into Romano's personal files to show that she's not telling the truth in her claims of injury "especially her claims for loss of enjoyment of life". Here's the court order.

The present application was brought on by Order to Show Cause. The Court has reviewed the submissions both in favor of and in opposition to the relief sought, as well as the applicable federal statutory law, specifically the Stored [*2]Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., which prohibits an entity, such as Facebook and MySpace from disclosing such information without the consent of the owner of the account (see, 18 U.S.C. 2702(b)(3); Flagg v City of Detroit, 252 FRD 352 [ED Mich 2008]).

In the "Stored Communications Act 18 U.S.C section 2701 subsection (a) article (1) basically says you can't go snooping around in other people's facebook/myspace/emails but subsection (c) article (3) says section 2703 shows some exceptions. Here's 2701.
Hop over to section 2703 and in subsection (b) article (1) subsection (B) subsection (ii) says you can get a court order as long as you follow article 2703 subsection (d) which give the rules for a court order. Basically if the plaintiff “specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation” then they can go for it.
Now the only thing that I can see that can derail this is if this isn’t a criminal investigation. Otherwise this isn’t a revolutionary ruling and it’s completely within the bounds of the letter of the law.
Here's 2703.

If you’re going to sue someone for personal injury don’t post things online that contradict what you’re claiming in court. Not that hard to figure that out.

Supreme Court Judge Allen Spinner reasoned -I think completely correctly - that social networking sites are not private lockboxes where you store your most intimate secrets; in fact their privacy policies tell you that they are public spaces. Therefore he said:
"Plaintiff has no legitimate reasonable expectation of privacy."

I find this reasoning to be wildly fallacious.
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/REPORTER/3dseries/2010/2010_20388.htm

The Judge (incorrectly IMO) makes a mockery of "self-regulated privacy settings."
The end result of this case is that if you put it online, even for only one person to see, it is fair game for discovery.

In determining whether a right to privacy exists via the Fourth Amendment, courts apply the reasonableness standard set forth in the concurring opinion of Justice Harlan in Katz: "first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable." Id. at 361, 516 (Harlan, J. concurring) (internal quotations omitted).

Since Plaintiff knew that her information may become publicly available, she cannot now claim that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy. As recently set forth by commentators regarding privacy and social networking sites, given the millions of users, "[i]n this environment, privacy is no longer grounded in reasonable expectations, but rather in some theoretical protocol better known as wishful thinking."

This is the conclusion of a logical failtrain and I hope it goes to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals

You may be denied benefits if:

* You were fired because your employer alleged that you violated a company policy, rule or procedure, such as absenteeism or insubordination; because of a disagreement or dispute with a boss or co-worker; or you were fired for any other reason.

It's one thing to get laid off, but why on earth should you pay unemployment benefits to someone who gets fired for a bad attitude?

In the state of New York, I had to purchase health insurance for my mother at one point in time. She was 52 years old, and based solely on that fact, I had to pay about $9000 a year for Blue Cross/Blue Shield coverage for her. That was back in the early '90s.

Just looked up the current rates. As of mid-2009, the Direct Pay HMO rates are $1110 per month and the Direct Pay POS plan rates are $1400 per month. That is in the range of $13,000 to $17,000 per year, for an individual plan, if you live in New York City.

A family plan is $3500-$4500 per month.

Think this is crazy? See here. Individual health insurance plans have increased by an insane amount in the last 10-15 years. The cheapest, crappiest HMO plan where you have limited doctor choice, etc. is $750-$800 a month, more than $9,000 per year. And if you go with the cheapest possible option, you know it will suck.

So basically, you don't know what you are talking about.

Here

but the major benefit of iodized salt is the near-elimination of cretinism

With a few notable exceptions...

Which, if you actually read the bill is an outright lie by Ortiz:

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=+A10129%09%09&Summary=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y

3 S 399-BBB. PROHIBITION ON SALT; RESTAURANTS. 1. NO OWNER OR OPERATOR
4 OF A RESTAURANT IN THIS STATE SHALL USE SALT IN ANY FORM IN THE PREPARA-
5 TION OF ANY FOOD FOR CONSUMPTION BY CUSTOMERS OF SUCH RESTAURANT,
6 INCLUDING FOOD PREPARED TO BE CONSUMED ON THE PREMISES OF SUCH RESTAU-
7 RANT OR OFF OF SUCH PREMISES.

Fail troll is fail.

My uncle named me his proxy. When he suddenly was hospitalized, we followed his wishes. Not easy, but much easier than trying to figure out what he wanted after he wasn't able to communicate.

Hi,

You left a critical piece of the puzzle out -- what state are you in? Some states (like new york) have soem form of state sponsored insurance. Here is an example:

http://www.ins.state.ny.us/website2/hny/english/hny.htm
and something similar from Maryland
http://www.marylandhealthinsuranceplan.state.md.us/

While not every state is so forward thinking with luck you live in a state that has decided to enter some form of collective bargaining on behalf of it's uninsured citizens. Without this form of collective bargaining you will have few options that are not financially damming - especially if you get sick.

Note: Make your choice BEFORE you give notice as you will only have 60 days before your HIPAA waiver for preexisting conditions makes you uninsured for pre existing conditions .

Good Luck!!

I've been a contractor and consultant for many years and I've had to provide my own insurance for many years.

COBRA = Up to 18-months at Full Corporate & Personal Payment + ~2% Administrative Fees

Just to let you know that coverage under COBRA is not always good since you have to pay your part of the premium, the company's part of the premium, and also an added administrative fee so you're paying an additional premium for coverage that is now costing you twice or much more.

Independent Coverage from Major US HMO (Aetna, Oxford, Blue Cross/Shield, etc.) = $1,400 - $1,800 per Month

For shits and giggles I decided to call and research the major insurance companies in New York state in the US and ask them about what it would cost to cover me individually and I got quote from $1,400 to $1,800 for the lowest priced HMO prices for a fully healthy 25-30 year old male, non-smoking, non-drinking, no-preconditions. These prices were direct from the provider themselves and I was surprised that they quoted me so much above what the New York State Insurance Department for Health Care Plans had listed on their web site.

Freelancers Union or Local Chamber of Commerce

Be aware that the health plans offered at least in New York State around the mid 2005's by the FreelancersUnion.org were not exactly cheap nor good, they offered HIP HMO which was the lowest rated HMO with the higher complaint count according to the NYS Insurance Department for Health Care Plans and they wanted $700 for individual only and over $1,000 for family. HIP had a series of corruption and accounting issues that were public and incompetence that wasn't but was know by folks that worked there, some were friends.

They did offer a pretty good "discount" plan for Dental by Guardian for ~$50 per month that did have pretty good rates for procedures, such as %50 off for a root canal and crown, and really low costs of $12 for composite molar fillings with multiple faces being done.

Now Freelancer's Union has expanded and they offer PPO 1,2,3 (Preferred Provider Organization = You pick your own doctor not from an HMO network) that are damn expensive at $300-500 for individual or $800-1,400 for family and HD $5K and $10K (High Deductible ~= Catastrophic Health Problem) plans that are still quite expensive at $200-300 for individual or $550-900 for a family.

I've been with and have used Freelancer's Unions dental plan but not the health plan and I did think that they offered such a great deal and savings. Their plans are expensive and they are not really a union they are a for-profit company that is just reselling you insurance! They do not run their business very efficiently or very well with multiple cases of screw ups every year when it comes time to renew the plans and select your new plans, such as two years ago when they didn't do re-enrollment for a whole month after the deadline since they screwed up. They run a fully paperless frontend for you but from the back office work they must deal with reams of it. Just be careful and weary of this so called "union" since they are not one!

Uninsured Option!

I decided to give up on HMO or PPO health insurance because it's just too insanely expensive at $900-$1,400 for coverage. That is more money that my biggest expense that is rent. It is an insane amount of money for a self-employed individual making due with a few clients and non-steady income.

The United States is a horrible place to live without be subservient to a corporation who holds their benefits and insurance plans over you like an indentured servant since if you start and family and decide to leave their good graces or are no longer desired you're in the path of bankruptcy for even non-lethal health problems or accidents.

Why claim a $500 reward when you can exploit and steal more?

Because that is illegal... the idea of this project is to get honest security researchers incentives to find bugs so that the people who would exploit them, cannot.

People keep saying this, but it ain't illegal at all. Show me the law.

Exploiting computers and stealing aren't illegal you say?

Links to a number of laws: http://www.cybercrime.gov/cclaws.html

More sources of reading pleasure:

http://www.cybercrime.gov/cc.html
http://www.ustreas.gov/usss/financial_crimes.shtml#Computer
http://www.fbi.gov/cyberinvest/cyberhome.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/technology/electronic-crime/welcome.htm

And in case the .gov websites aren't legit enough for you, there is always wikipedia ;}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_crime

Oh, and as for stealing not being illegal, you are wrong there too.

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS

Go to that link, scroll down to "PEN" for penal laws and click, then go down to section 155 on Larceny.
(Their site sucks and uses javascript for navigation, so I can't directly link. Bastards :} )

You can look up your own state laws similar (Under penal law, for the crime larceny)

Just to head off the inevitable "But I don't live in the US so everything you said doesn't matter", the answer is "no, it does, you are wrong."
Google is in the US, so is bound by US laws, which is the topic of conversation in this thread.
(Granted, California state laws for theft and not New York, but that was the link I had handy, they are all basically the same except for some minor details, and it was painful enough looking up anything on the NY site as it is :/ )

Thanks. We wouldn't put a GPS on a 5-year-old kid and let them run loose in the streets, thinking "It's okay now, they have GPS!" GPS won't keep someone from putting your kitten in a plastic bag and smashing it repeatedly against a metal fence until its' back is broken (some sick f*** did that in Verdun 2 years ago). It won't stop them from pouring gasoline on it and setting it on fire. It won't stop them from torturing the cat and dumping it in a bag in the river.

There are a lot of sick people out there who delight in torturing animals - particularly cats.

Buster's Law was named after an 18-month-old tabby cat that had been doused with kerosene and burned to death by a Schenectady teen in 1997. Prior to this bill becoming law, animal cruelty resulted in misdemeanor penalties, if any charges were imposed at all.

Tedisco noted that since the 1997 arrest that inspired the creation of Buster's Law, the perpetrator who abused the cat has been imprisoned for various crimes, including attempted rape, sexual abuse and unlawful imprisonment of a 12-year-old girl.

"People who abuse animals are on a fast track to one day harming or killing people. It is critical that state government take every measure possible to halt such an escalating pattern of abuse," Tedisco stated.

FBI reports show that animal cruelty is an offense that often leads to other, more serious crimes against humans. According to the Humane Society of the United States, a 1997 survey of the largest shelters for battered women in the United States found that 85 percent of women and 63 percent of children entering shelters discussed incidents of pet abuse in their families. Notorious serial killers Ted Bundy, David Berkowitz and Jeffrey Dahmer all had histories of abusing animals.

A GPS doesn't keep animals away from harm - a leash does. Walking your pet also strengthens the bond between it and you. GPS won't do that, either.

Actually the source of the info about his wife's employment is from his own bio page from NYS.
http://www.health.state.ny.us/prevention/public_health_works/profiles/commissioner_daines.htm

Keep in mind that, in New York, the "New York Supreme Court" is their trial court, and its rulings can be overturned on appeal.

Without a citation, I doubted this, but it's true: The New York Supreme Court is indeed a trial court and it is trumped by the New York Appellate Courts

Keep in mind that, in New York, the "New York Supreme Court" is their trial court, and its rulings can be overturned on appeal.

Without a citation, I doubted this, but it's true: The New York Supreme Court is indeed a trial court and it is trumped by the New York Appellate Courts

RTFA. The Article says she has not hired a lawyer. She filed this case pro se. All you need is $210. It'll get booted for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."

And lawyers get fined for filing frivolous cases. They even get suspended or disbarred, but that's fairly extreme. The bar for a frivolous case is pretty high, and any decent attorney can find some kind of fraudulent inducement claim that'll survive summary judgement.

But you are still on their records as a sex offender for 20 years and you have to report your email address and account information on social networking sites.... so it is quite an inconvenience, not to mention the problems you might have when trying to get a job.

As mentioned in http://idle.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1319889&cid=28882753 :

Sex offenders are classified by risk level:

* Level one (low risk);
* Level two (medium risk); and
* Level three (high risk).

Level 1 offenders are required to register for a minimum of twenty years, and level 2 and 3 offenders for life. Police and law enforcement have access to information on all sex offenders (levels 1, 2 and 3). However, under the law, information on level 1 (low-risk) offenders is not available on the public website. Only level 2 and 3 offenders are listed on the public website

Frequently Asked Questions http://www.criminaljustice.state.ny.us/nsor/index.htm

A Level 1 offender means that the court has determined that there is a low risk to commit another sex crime. A Level 2 offender means that the court has determined that there is a moderate risk to commit another sex crime. A Level 3 offender means that the court has determined that there is a high risk to commit another sex crime.

The Electronic Security and Targeting of Online Predators Act, which took effect on April 28, 2008, requires all registered sex offenders to report to DCJS all of their internet accounts and any e-mail addresses and screen names used for the purposes of chat, instant messaging or social networking. The Act does not limit a sex offender's use of the Internet. However, if the sex offender is on probation or parole, the terms of the offender's parole or probation may limit his or her use of the Internet.

That's great for the very stereotypical creepy, mustachioed child molester, but ever-increasingly the phrase, "sex offender" has nothing to do with children at all.

There are times when I think the geek has disconnected from reality.

Office of Sex Offender Management
Sex Offender Registry

Sex offenders are classified by risk level:

* Level one (low risk);
* Level two (medium risk); and
* Level three (high risk).

Level 1 offenders are required to register for a minimum of twenty years, and level 2 and 3 offenders for life. Police and law enforcement have access to information on all sex offenders (levels 1, 2 and 3). However, under the law, information on level 1 (low-risk) offenders is not available on the public website. Only level 2 and 3 offenders are listed on the public website

Frequently Asked Questions

A Level 1 offender means that the court has determined that there is a low risk to commit another sex crime. A Level 2 offender means that the court has determined that there is a moderate risk to commit another sex crime. A Level 3 offender means that the court has determined that there is a high risk to commit another sex crime.

Where an offender is in jail or prison for a sex offense, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommends to the court which risk level should be given to an offender. Where an offender does not receive jail/prison time or receives probation plus jail/prison time, the District Attorney recommends to the court which risk level should be given to an offender. The court makes the final decision.

A sexual predator is a sex offender who has been found guilty of a sexually violent offense and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes him or her likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses. A sexual predator must register for life.

A predicate sex offender is a sex offender who has been found guilty of two or more sex crimes. A predicate sex offender must register for life.

The Electronic Security and Targeting of Online Predators Act, which took effect on April 28, 2008, requires all registered sex offenders to report to DCJS all of their internet accounts and any e-mail addresses and screen names used for the purposes of chat, instant messaging or social networking. This information is not generally available to the public. However, DCJS is allowed, upon request, to give the internet information to social networking websites that have members under the age of 18.

The Electronic Security and Targeting of Online Predators Act, which took effect on April 28, 2008, requires all registered sex offenders to report to DCJS all of their internet accounts and any e-mail addresses and screen names used for the purposes of chat, instant messaging or social networking. The Act does not limit a sex offender's use of the Internet. However, if the sex offender is on probation or parole, the terms of the offender's parole or probation may limit his or her use of the Internet.

An individual, who is adjudicated, such as a youthful offender or juvenile delinquent, is not convicted of a crime and his or her records are not available to the public. As a result, he or she is not required to be registered in New York State. However, a juvenile offender, who is convicted of a sex crime, is required to register.

These links trace the strange path of a Class 3 registrant who, curiously enough, does fit the stereotype:

Dozens of sex offenders live in the Falls.l James McKinney

That's great for the very stereotypical creepy, mustachioed child molester, but ever-increasingly the phrase, "sex offender" has nothing to do with children at all.

There are times when I think the geek has disconnected from reality.

Office of Sex Offender Management
Sex Offender Registry

Sex offenders are classified by risk level:

* Level one (low risk);
* Level two (medium risk); and
* Level three (high risk).

Level 1 offenders are required to register for a minimum of twenty years, and level 2 and 3 offenders for life. Police and law enforcement have access to information on all sex offenders (levels 1, 2 and 3). However, under the law, information on level 1 (low-risk) offenders is not available on the public website. Only level 2 and 3 offenders are listed on the public website

Frequently Asked Questions

A Level 1 offender means that the court has determined that there is a low risk to commit another sex crime. A Level 2 offender means that the court has determined that there is a moderate risk to commit another sex crime. A Level 3 offender means that the court has determined that there is a high risk to commit another sex crime.

Where an offender is in jail or prison for a sex offense, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommends to the court which risk level should be given to an offender. Where an offender does not receive jail/prison time or receives probation plus jail/prison time, the District Attorney recommends to the court which risk level should be given to an offender. The court makes the final decision.

A sexual predator is a sex offender who has been found guilty of a sexually violent offense and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes him or her likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses. A sexual predator must register for life.

A predicate sex offender is a sex offender who has been found guilty of two or more sex crimes. A predicate sex offender must register for life.

The Electronic Security and Targeting of Online Predators Act, which took effect on April 28, 2008, requires all registered sex offenders to report to DCJS all of their internet accounts and any e-mail addresses and screen names used for the purposes of chat, instant messaging or social networking. This information is not generally available to the public. However, DCJS is allowed, upon request, to give the internet information to social networking websites that have members under the age of 18.

The Electronic Security and Targeting of Online Predators Act, which took effect on April 28, 2008, requires all registered sex offenders to report to DCJS all of their internet accounts and any e-mail addresses and screen names used for the purposes of chat, instant messaging or social networking. The Act does not limit a sex offender's use of the Internet. However, if the sex offender is on probation or parole, the terms of the offender's parole or probation may limit his or her use of the Internet.

An individual, who is adjudicated, such as a youthful offender or juvenile delinquent, is not convicted of a crime and his or her records are not available to the public. As a result, he or she is not required to be registered in New York State. However, a juvenile offender, who is convicted of a sex crime, is required to register.

These links trace the strange path of a Class 3 registrant who, curiously enough, does fit the stereotype:

Dozens of sex offenders live in the Falls.l James McKinney

That's great for the very stereotypical creepy, mustachioed child molester, but ever-increasingly the phrase, "sex offender" has nothing to do with children at all.

There are times when I think the geek has disconnected from reality.

Office of Sex Offender Management
Sex Offender Registry

Sex offenders are classified by risk level:

* Level one (low risk);
* Level two (medium risk); and
* Level three (high risk).

Level 1 offenders are required to register for a minimum of twenty years, and level 2 and 3 offenders for life. Police and law enforcement have access to information on all sex offenders (levels 1, 2 and 3). However, under the law, information on level 1 (low-risk) offenders is not available on the public website. Only level 2 and 3 offenders are listed on the public website

Frequently Asked Questions

A Level 1 offender means that the court has determined that there is a low risk to commit another sex crime. A Level 2 offender means that the court has determined that there is a moderate risk to commit another sex crime. A Level 3 offender means that the court has determined that there is a high risk to commit another sex crime.

Where an offender is in jail or prison for a sex offense, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommends to the court which risk level should be given to an offender. Where an offender does not receive jail/prison time or receives probation plus jail/prison time, the District Attorney recommends to the court which risk level should be given to an offender. The court makes the final decision.

A sexual predator is a sex offender who has been found guilty of a sexually violent offense and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes him or her likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses. A sexual predator must register for life.

A predicate sex offender is a sex offender who has been found guilty of two or more sex crimes. A predicate sex offender must register for life.

The Electronic Security and Targeting of Online Predators Act, which took effect on April 28, 2008, requires all registered sex offenders to report to DCJS all of their internet accounts and any e-mail addresses and screen names used for the purposes of chat, instant messaging or social networking. This information is not generally available to the public. However, DCJS is allowed, upon request, to give the internet information to social networking websites that have members under the age of 18.

The Electronic Security and Targeting of Online Predators Act, which took effect on April 28, 2008, requires all registered sex offenders to report to DCJS all of their internet accounts and any e-mail addresses and screen names used for the purposes of chat, instant messaging or social networking. The Act does not limit a sex offender's use of the Internet. However, if the sex offender is on probation or parole, the terms of the offender's parole or probation may limit his or her use of the Internet.

An individual, who is adjudicated, such as a youthful offender or juvenile delinquent, is not convicted of a crime and his or her records are not available to the public. As a result, he or she is not required to be registered in New York State. However, a juvenile offender, who is convicted of a sex crime, is required to register.

These links trace the strange path of a Class 3 registrant who, curiously enough, does fit the stereotype:

Dozens of sex offenders live in the Falls.l James McKinney

a world in which it was a crime simply to possess certain information would be very scary

Uh, you do realize you already live in that world, right? Right?

Canada had the gun registry that failed miserably [wikipedia.org]. It was supposed to cost about $120mil, but ended up costing the (now poor) tax payers $2 billion. Yep. 2. Billion.

Had as in past tense? I thought it was still around?

Can't say that I'm really surprised. New York State has CoBIS, a program to collect fired brass from all handguns to enter into a ballistic databank. This program has had numerous cost overruns and has solved zero crimes since introduction. So naturally our fearless leaders in Albany want to expand it to cover more types of firearms......

A link for those wanting to watch the lawyering: NY court info

A preliminary injunction has been filed, I would guess to keep the IP from being idly sold off in the bankruptcy, but no lawyers for 3DRealms has been noted on the site. "Disposition deadline" is in August 2011. How swift is that?

Take Two may be using this suit to establish a claim it can take to the bankruptcy court. Once there, however, it'd have to swim with the other creditors in the pool and fight for whatever morsels it thinks is coming to it.

I'd like to see the full text of the opinion. The small extracts I've seen so far basically amount to "I don't like giving the police such power", which, if it were the only legal basis of the opinion, would be the worst kind of legislating-from-the-bench, and not likely to survive an appeal. Surely in 20 pages of opinion, there was an actual legal basis given for their decision. One can hope?

The newspaper said the defendant's name was Scott Weaver. From this, if New York puts its appellate cases on-line (Virginia is one state that does), one could look up "State v. Weaver" or "People v. Weaver" (depending on how criminal cases are styled in New York) and see all the cases in 2009 that were decided with that header.

I started with http://state.ny.us/ which translates to http://www.ny.gov/ . Right on the page is "New York State Unified Court System" Click that, then click on "How do I", click on "find a decision", clicked on "Court of Appeals", clicked on "May" and found People v. Scott C. Weaver, No. 53. The PDF and the Word Perfect document are available there at: http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/decisions/2009/may09/53opn09.pdf and http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/decisions/2009/may09/53opn09.wpd Indirectly I found out there is a website for the court, and somehow found the HTML version: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_03762.htm

Â1175. Obstructing traffic at intersection.

When vehicular traffic is stopped on the opposite side of an intersection, no person shall drive a vehicle into such intersection, except when making a turn unless there is adequate space on the opposite side of the intersection to accommodate the vehicle he is driving notwithstanding the indication of a traffic control signal which would permit him to proceed.

http://www.nysgtsc.state.ny.us/rowa-vt.htm#1175

Sad that people don't know simple traffic laws which shouldn't even need to be listed as they should be common sense.

I was going to argue the counter case to the parent, but having done some more research it does seem like electricity deregulation in the USA has actually made things worse: http://assembly.state.ny.us/member_files/044/20070913/ (note: I don't know enough to say it's fact).

I would however like to say that regulation or de-regulation can be beneficial in different circumstances. In the case of Electricity in the US states perhaps a model based on maintaining a state owned supplier, but allowing new private competitors into the market could be beneficial? Perhaps artificial competition formed by splitting the public electricity firm into two providers would work.

If people would RTFA, they would see that this is NOT the same as what has been going on regarding Amazon and other e-tailers to collect NY state tax. That tax is "use tax" that you as a private citizen are required to pay regardless of whether the retailer collects it. This article is about charging for digital downloads. It is about the medium. With exceptions, current tax codes only require the payment of tax for tangible goods. iTunes downloads fall outside the scope of the definition of "tangible goods." See: http://www.tax.state.ny.us/pdf/publications/multi/pub20_1007.pdf

The particulars are different, in that what was going on before concerned tangible goods and this concerns what you could call intangible goods. This is otherwise a rose by any other name and the principles involved are exactly the same. If whether you would term it a "sales tax" or a "use tax" somehow changes the nature of what NY is trying to do or somehow affects the desirability of this proposal, please tell me how.

If people would RTFA, they would see that this is NOT the same as what has been going on regarding Amazon and other e-tailers to collect NY state tax. That tax is "use tax" that you as a private citizen are required to pay regardless of whether the retailer collects it. This article is about charging for digital downloads. It is about the medium. With exceptions, current tax codes only require the payment of tax for tangible goods. iTunes downloads fall outside the scope of the definition of "tangible goods." See: http://www.tax.state.ny.us/pdf/publications/multi/pub20_1007.pdf

New York published a report studying issues surrounding electronic records.

It mostly centers around document formats, but an appendix in Part 2 recommends that the state integrate the evaluation of open source software into procurement policy. You might find it interesting.

You can find it here:
http://www.oft.state.ny.us/policy/esra/erecords-study.htm

That's because the licensing and registration of motor vehicles in the US is up to the states, not the federal government. Some states have mandatory scheduled testing for things like emissions and safety. There is no national program because it falls under the area of states rights. Remember, in the US, the national government is only supposed to have limited powers (national defense, regulation of interstate and foreign commerce, etc.) with everything else not specified falling to the states. That's what's different about the US in comparison to many other countries and trips people up.

-Rob