Slashdot Mirror

erm. What's "taring"?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Taring isn't helping me much on this one.

Anyway, CEO isn't a tech job.

We aren't talking about a lack of evidence, but rather an absence of proof. Prosecutors compile evidence against you. Often they compile lots of evidence against an innocent man. The existence of evidence does not ensure proof.

#1 I am not American. We do not have a "section on the American Constitution", we have a section on *our* constitution

So you are admitting you know nothing about the topic. Nice.

#2 I still apparently know your constitution/laws better than you since Freedom of Association is inherent in Freedom of Assembly ever since NAACP v. Alabama.

Evidently not since all NAACP v. Alabama ruled was that a private organization doesn't have to divulge it's membership list, and used the due process clause under the 14th amendment as it's justification, and invoked that due process as referring to the Right of Assembly which is tied to the right of Free Speech.

From http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Freedom+of+Association+and+Assembly

"General types of association unrelated to First Amendment rights are not protected by the Constitution. For instance, in City of Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19, 109 S. Ct. 1591, 104 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1989), the Court held that a city ordinance limiting adult entrance into teenage dance halls did not violate the associational rights of either the adults or the minors. The association of adults and minors in a social setting does not fall within the purview of any rights protected by the First Amendment and therefore is not a constitutionally protected activity."

Notice the similarity of this to our topic.

So once AGAIN you FAIL on matters regarding the US Constitutional, and in fact your statement that this is clearly unconstitutional, which it is obviously not.

FYI My country's constitution has Freedom of Association written explicitly into it. So much for your constitution being divine/America being the shining city on the hill - your personal freedoms are at the mercy of your judicial branch.

You are making me roll on the floor with laughter. You guys didn't even have a Bill of Rights as part of your Constitution until 1982. You still can't run an national election properly that isn't severely in doubt of its validity. Fact: the US has had a Bill of Rights as part of it's Constitution some 200 years longer than you have.

I guess *you* didn't pass *your* section on the Constitution (assuming you're American - which judging by your automatic assumption that everyone else is, is probably a pretty safe assumption)

This web site is US based. The vast majority of its participants are Americans. This is a story which would normally have little or no international interest. Why the hell wouldn't I assume you were American? Except maybe by your ignorance of these matters?

Except there may well be legal reason for being detained.

Police have the power for Investigatory stops or detentions, especially at a crime scene. If you are detained at the scene of a crime, resisting this detention is foolish. In some cases, resisting a lawful detention instantly changes the situation into a de facto arrest.

Investigatory stops or detentions must be limited and temporary, lasting no longer than necessary to carry out the purpose of the stop or detention. An investigatory stop that lasts too long turns into a de facto arrest that must comply with the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment. But no bright line exists for determining when an investigatory stop becomes a de facto arrest, as courts are reluctant to hamstring the flexibility and discretion of police officers by placing artificial time limitations on the fluid and dynamic nature of their investigations. Rather, the test is whether the detention is temporary and whether the police acted with reasonable dispatch to quickly confirm or dispel the suspicions that initially induced the investigative detention.

Gimp is an offensive term when used to refer to someone who is lame or handicapped. It may also evoke "the Gimp" from Pulp Fiction in some people's minds. However, it has other meanings, which are perfectly acceptable in polite conversation. Furthermore, it is a refreshingly straightforward, unforced, (indirectly) recursive acronym.

Personally, I am fine with the name and I picture the cute little whatever-it-is logo when I hear it, if I picture anything at all.

"It only effected morons ..."

It is true that a lot of iPhone users have children of exceedingly low intelligence, but I'm not convinced that the correlation is indicative of causation in this case.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/narcotics

Basically, you are a fucktard making a fucktarded argument. You are not worth the effort of responding to, but I will solely for the benefit of anyone else reading this tread, so they see how fucking stupid and wrong you are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship#Types http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring http://gilc.org/speech/osistudy/censorship/ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor http://www.thefreedictionary.com/censorship http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Censorship

Now, please go eat the bag of dicks you came in on, asshole.

Basically, you are a fucktard making a fucktarded argument. You are not worth the effort of responding to, but I will solely for the benefit of anyone else reading this tread, so they see how fucking stupid and wrong you are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship#Types http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring http://gilc.org/speech/osistudy/censorship/ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor http://www.thefreedictionary.com/censorship http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Censorship

Now, please go eat the bag of dicks you came in on, asshole.

If suicide is illegal in the state it was performed in, could those people actually be responsible for committing criminal solicitation?

"A person who asks someone to commit an illegal act has committed the criminal act of solicitation." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/solicitation

If they were urging this person to kill someone else would you feel different about it?

Instead of being pedantic, maybe you'd acknowledge that, unlike alcohol, without ingesting water you'd die, much sooner than you would if you had no food, hence it is not a poison or considered toxic.

Pedantic? Well you are a bit entertaining at least. Remind me of my Son. You called it a nutrient. It isn't and your statement doesn't even address that. You should have said - "You're right." or "agreed" instead of trying to salvage... well something I suppose. Better yet, don't mention water. Stick to the subject at hand.

(.. bit about me drinking for 30 years...)

This statement is ignorant, as the body has a natural ability to clear poisons, and they can be tolerated in low enough doses. However, there's quite a long list of illnesses associated with chronic alcohol abuse, in particular cirrhosis of the liver, and if you actually watched the video I linked to, many of these same illnesses are implicated with fructose.

Where to even begin. You apparently read the article in the NY Times about sugar. Understand that just because it's in print, especially in the NY Times, that doesn't mean it's true.

You read the stuff on ethanol and I think you didn't understand it. If you are not injured, killed nor impared - it's not a poison. Since you cannot show any toxic effects with a small dose, it's not a poison. In fact in low doses they consider it a benefit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_alcohol . So your (actually, it's probably their) assertion that it is, is wrong. Otherwise, explain how a poison can be beneficial. Sure, I read the NYT article. I could show you a whole bunch of un-reproduceable studies by "scientists" in their quest for grants. Unfortunately some end up in the NY Times and believed by people far and wide. Oxygen for example is toxic in too high of a quantity. I don't think many would agree with you that it's poisonous. Just the gullable.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/unconscionable

"An unconscionable contract is one that no person who is mentally competent would enter into and that no fair and honest person would accept."

You're probably stuck with your contracts so long as your carrier is able to attract significant numbers of new people to sign on to the same terms, as that pretty much blows the unconscionable requirements.

Personally, I don't use any services with frequent TOS changes. It's not that hard to avoid.

Ok, water is many things however it isn't a nutrient.

Instead of being pedantic, maybe you'd acknowledge that, unlike alcohol, without ingesting water you'd die, much sooner than you would if you had no food, hence it is not a poison or considered toxic.

Maybe it would be useful to look at how they define a poison - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison

Did you actually look?

"In the context of biology, poisons are substances that cause disturbances to organisms,[1] usually by chemical reaction or other activity on the molecular scale, when a sufficient quantity is absorbed by an organism. [..] poisons are generally defined as substances absorbed through epithelial linings such as the skin or gut."

The first obvious effect of alcohol is that it impairs your brain function.

Explain why something that really is a poison, for example anti-freeze or Ethylene glycol is like the way the body handles ethanol, or perhaps how ethanol damages the body in a manner that's consistent with a poison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol

"Pure ethanol will irritate the skin and eyes.[76] Nausea, vomiting and intoxication are symptoms of ingestion. Long-term use by ingestion can result in serious liver damage.[77] Atmospheric concentrations above one in a thousand are above the European Union Occupational exposure limits.[77] [..] Death from ethyl alcohol consumption is possible when blood alcohol level reaches 0.4%. A blood level of 0.5% or more is commonly fatal. Levels of even less than 0.1% can cause intoxication, with unconsciousness often occurring at 0.3-0.4%.[80] Prolonged heavy consumption of alcohol can cause significant permanent damage to the brain and other organs. [..] Ethanol within the human body is converted into acetaldehyde by alcohol dehydrogenase and then into the acetyl in acetyl CoA by acetaldehyde dehydrogenase. Acetyl CoA is the final product of both carbohydrate and fat metabolism, where the acetyl can be further used to produce energy or for biosynthesis. As such, ethanol is a nutrient. However, the product of the first step of this breakdown, acetaldehyde,[84] is more toxic than ethanol. Acetaldehyde is linked to most of the clinical effects of alcohol. It has been shown to increase the risk of developing cirrhosis of the liver[68] and multiple forms of cancer."

Since you like wiki, here's one for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol#Treatment_for_poisoning_by_other_alcohols .

"Ethanol is sometimes used to treat poisoning by other, more toxic alcohols"

If ethanol were a poison, I'd be dead by now. I've been drinking it for over 3 decades.

This statement is ignorant, as the body has a natural ability to clear poisons, and they can be tolerated in low enough doses. However, there's quite a long list of illnesses associated with chronic alcohol abuse, in particular cirrhosis of the liver, and if you actually watched the video I linked to, many of these same illnesses are implicated with fructose.

I'd appreciate it if you would either admit your error or come up with something concrete as to why I'm wrong.

Funny, I feel the same about you. So far you've ignored the video I linked to on the processing of alcohol and fructose, you've ignored the fact that water is needed for life where alcohol is not, instead pedantically focusing on the term I used, and you've ignored the links and quotes I've already posted on the liver's function in breaking down toxic substances. I can only imagine you'll ignore the substance of what I've said in this post, too.

Socialism isn't an economic system to be compared or contrasted with capitalism or communism. It is the aspect of all government systems that seek to minimize harm to society as a whole. Nothing more, nothing less.

You're wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership and control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism
1. (Economics) an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

By the same logic you're following, I could say capitalism isn't an economic system either. It is merely an aspect of all government systems to grow society through a free market. Or some nonsense like that. But when it comes down to it, they're both economic systems because they both involve a distinct manner of handling/overseeing the free market.

And if they are written solely to enrage others or illicit a response, they deserve "-1 Flamebait" or "-1 Troll". by arth1 (260657) on Monday April 09, @07:24AM (#39617461) Homepage

First of all, it's ELICIT -> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/elicit not ILLICIT -> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_illicit_mean

Please - learn to use the english language properly. Thank you.

Secondly, eliciting responses is what forums are about - Moderating down verifiably truthful statements is not, and is the illicit part going on here. A "near 'freudian slip'" from you, perhaps, in regards to unjust and unjustifiable downmoderation going on here?

That's what I am seeing happen in this case. To wit:

There is no "+1 Facts". Unless facts are interesting, insightful or otherwise bring something positive to the discussion, they don't deserve a modding up. by arth1 (260657) on Monday April 09, @07:24AM (#39617461) Homepage

He used verifiable facts quoting Sycraft-Fu's +5 interesting material adding on to it here http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2773441&cid=39615913 , which thus is on topic and continuing a discussion that was rated +5 interesting.

Odd his response posting was down moderated -1 for posting the same type of thing as was already posted and rated up to +5 for it by Sycraft-Fu.

What I want now is a heuristic filter that will downmod any post that appears to be a list of posts, links, or quotes with bolding. That would increase the signal to noise level here, because quite frankly, these irrelevant lists are NOISE. by arth1 (260657) on Monday April 09, @07:24AM (#39617461) Homepage

I found being able to verify statements with links supporting them far more interesting actually than the parent post with the same type of material, albeit minus supporting links from good sources, less interesting in fact.

It appears that the Linux people around here cannot stand when truths are posted with verifying links and downmoderate such comments indiscriminately in some poor attempt to hide truths in them.

Thats not an option and it wasn't for allot of The Midwest during the 30's, look up the Dustbowl

While we're on the subject of looking things up...

The dictionary says that

Noun 1. hijacking - robbery of a traveller or vehicle in transit or seizing control of a vehicle by the use of force

Looks like piracy, stealing and murdering. The free dictionary is defining piracy as hijacking.

The difference in goals is only in the item being stolen. It could be goods (or their delivery and safety, in case of extortion) or the ship itself (in case of pirates needing another work boat.) In either case, if you see pirates approaching your ship then do something, the visit won't be healthy for you. The following instrument would be a good start.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/yahoo

Perhaps he was referring to the Sex Professionals of Canada group...

IANAL, but you may be confusing assault with battery.

    An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

IANAL, but you may be confusing assault with battery.

    An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

Hmm, I've got mod points but I can't find the -1, Wrong entry on the menu. So I'll just point out here that you're wrong. The internet has not magically caused everyone to use your particular dialect of English.

Er, thanks for the reply instead of down-mod. And, apologies to orig. poster; I was a bit harsh.

However, I was also correct. And misuse (on the internet or elsewhere) has not (yet) made drug mean dragged.

Drug tr.v.:

1. To administer a drug to.
2. To poison or mix (food or drink) with a drug.
3. To stupefy or dull with or as if with a drug: drugged with sleep.

Or here:

transitive verb
1: to affect with a drug; especially : to stupefy by a narcotic drug
2: to administer a drug to
3: to lull or stupefy as if with a drug

This site is also in agreement.

It's rather clear that orig. poster was meaning dragged.

Hapless is the word you're looking for.

I really am not saying this to be a dick, but both you and a previous poster got this wrong. It's "cast aspersions on" not "cast dispersions on". http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/cast+aspersions+on

drive train : n. The components of an automotive vehicle that connect the transmission with the driving axles and include the universal joint and drive shaft. Also called driveline.

Unless the electric motor is directly in the wheel hubs, all electric cars have a drive train. Whether the drive train connects to a transmission or directly to an electric motor, or in this case to the clutch between the electric motor and gas engine, doesn't affect what word we use to describe it.

I'm sorry, did you mean to say, " champing at the bit"?

Literally, "I don't know what", figuratively, like an x-factor (as used to describe, say, fashion models or actors, and not the comic-book mutant kind). Ah hell, Merriam-Webster, Free Dictionary, Wiktionary explain it better...

A matter of semantics I suppose. I think of manipulation according to this definition:

2. To influence or manage shrewdly or deviously: He manipulated public opinion in his favor.

Islamist
Islamism
islamist

While it is highly charged, and there may be some disagreement about the precise definition of the term, it most certainly is a word. You're free to dislike its usage all you like, but that won't change the fact that it is a word.

founder (intransitive verb) , To fail utterly; collapse

What's wrong with that?

I believe falsification of evidence is the charge you're looking for.

Forgery seems an appropriate charge as well.

http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs5/5049/

Methamphetamine is a schedule II drug. MJ is schedule I.

Meaning? Under federal law, it can be legally used for a medical purpose (a schedule I cannot be used for such).

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Schedule+II+Controlled+Substance

So yes, it is more illegal than meth.

Sam

B especially you have taken too literally. It's an idiom.

Well in principal I agree, but "Due Process" is a slippery term. Essentially passing a law stating what the requirements are becomes the definition of "due process" in that context. But further It only applies to actions of governments.

Clearly fairness is at issue here.

With virtually every web user able to upload photos, writing, music, and video, the rights of the actual IP holders of those items was swamped by the masses. There aren't enough courts in the land to handle these issues. It could never be handled in the court system.

If you had to individually sue every person who posted your copyrighted short story or picture, you could go broke trying to enforce your rights.

Under the prior law there was, in effect, zero protection for the rights holder. As a small artist or writer, there was really nothing you could do against people who posted your work without your permission. There was even less you could do against the individual downloader of your works.

The current situation flips that on its head, handing the big hammer to anyone who cares to make a claim of copyright violation. There is some recourse in the law for the poster to prove the takedown was invalid, but there is no penalty for filing a false claim.

The only solution that is workable without totally swamping the courts would be some sort of (rapidly escalating) penalty for a false take down notice. Both a fiscal penalty, and perhaps a "Rights" penalty. Abuse your right to bear arms and you lose the arms (and perhaps your liberty). Abuse the right to issue take down notices, and you pay a fine, continue to abuse it, and you lose the right to issue take down notices (and, effectively, your copyright).

You probably still need a way to prevent people from posting an entire 60 million dollar movie on the web somewhere. A quick take down should be available in this case without going to court in every jurisdiction in the world.

tl;dr "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty; the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially, in response to a criminal charge.

The purpose of an arrest is to bring the arrestee before a court or otherwise secure the administration of the law. An arrest serves the function of notifying the community that an individual has been accused of a crime and also may admonish and deter the arrested individual from committing other crimes. Arrests can be made on both criminal charges and civil charges, although civil arrest is a drastic measure that is not looked upon with favor by the courts. The federal Constitution imposes limits on both civil and criminal arrests.

An arrest may occur (1) by the touching or putting hands on the arrestee; (2) by any act that indicates an intention to take the arrestee into custody and that subjects the arrestee to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest; or (3) by the consent of the person to be arrested. There is no arrest where there is no restraint, and the restraint must be under real or pretended legal authority. However, the detention of a person need not be accompanied by formal words of arrest or a station house booking to constitute an arrest.

The test used to determine whether an arrest took place in a particular case is objective, and it turns on whether a reasonable person under these circumstances would believe he or she was restrained or free to go. A reasonable person is one who is not guilty of criminal conduct, overly apprehensive, or insensitive to the seriousness of the circumstances. Reasonableness is not determined in light of a defendant's subjective knowledge or fears. The subjective intent of the police is also normally irrelevant to a court's determination whether an arrest occurred, unless the officer makes that intent known. Thus, a defendant's presence at a police station by consent does not become an arrest solely by virtue of an officer's subjective view that the defendant is not free to leave, absent an act indicating an intention to take the defendant into custody.

I have highlighted the important points. One can be arrested on the scene of a possible crime and let go with no charges. One can be arrested by the officer(s) telling one not to leave because he wants to question one. Then, by attempting to leave, one can be arrested for resisting arrest, but this time taken into custody, transported to jail, booked, etc. It wasn't that long ago that one might be arrested for being drunk, dropped in the drunk tank, then let go without charges when one sobered up.

This is yet another problem with the ambiguity of the English language especially in the case of legal or professional jargon as opposed to general usage.

Your example is funny now, but 150 years from now, that could literally be the norm.

Language evolves quickly. The usage of the word "cool" as a positive epithet (i.e., 'That's a cool car!') isn't even 100 years old at this point, yet most Americans probably don't even use it outside of the slang usage much anymore.

From the Free Dictionary:

The usage of cool as a general positive epithet or interjection has been part and parcel of English slang since World War II, and has even been borrowed into other languages, such as French and German. Originally this sense is a development from a Black English usage meaning "excellent, superlative," first recorded in written English in the early 1930s. Jazz musicians who used the term are responsible for its popularization during the 1940s. As a slang word expressing generally positive sentiment, it has stayed current (and cool) far longer than most such words. One of the main characteristics of slang is the continual renewal of its vocabulary and storehouse of expressions: in order for slang to stay slangy, it has to have a feeling of novelty. Slang expressions meaning the same thing as cool, like bully, capital, hot, groovy, hep, crazy, nervous, far-out, rad, and tubular have for the most part not had the staying power or continued universal appeal of cool. In general there is no intrinsic reason why one word stays alive and others get consigned to the scrapheap of linguistic history; slang terms are like fashion designs, constantly changing and never "in" for long. The jury is still out on how long newer expressions of approval such as def and phat will survive.

Posting AC to preserve moderation (Holy crap, mod points?! In my Slashdot?!!?!)

It is "bald-faced", not "bold-faced". You're just as wrong as he is.

Nope:It's bold-faced, as in bold type face. See for example: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bold-faced bold-faced (bldfst) adj. 1. Impudent; brazen: a bold-faced lie. 2. Printed in thick, heavy type.

Pulling out all the stops means the opposite of what you think it does: definition.

The innocent have nothing to fear, yes, I know that.
Actually, what the innocent still have to fear is HI acting like every other right wing shill group. They have two things on their side: money and lawyers. They can bankrupt an innocent person through the act of barratry and as a corrupt right wing shill group whose previous exploits involve funding faked studies to do things like claim cigarette smoke isn't dangerous, they've already shown that they have no moral compass stopping them from doing so.

If they fear commenting on these documents to such a degree, I have to ask why,
See above. If they get exposed so blatantly, they might have to fold. And the people writing for them might have to find real work rather than being right wing shills.

Second, the whole climate change is bunk movement's claim is that politics is being played, and you can't trust the results saying it is happening. We have a memo here implying that politics might be being played, and research/motives to be questioned. Revealing this is grounds for being sued.

Third, lawsuits potentially coming? Even ignoring the chilling effect, do we really need to reach that stage of escalation int his subject where every time someone speaks for one side the other side begins suing?

They are all attacking the messengers and trying to cease the message. They have yet to put out anything to show these are false. Just silencing the people trying to talk about this.
Right wing shillery RELIES on two things: the echo chamber and the chilling effect. Ever noticed how a Fox News viewer screams about the "liberal media" nonstop? It's because if they ever listened to both sides, they'd realize their side's argument is more full of holes than a loaf of aged swiss cheese.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/feral

See now what you've done there is change the meaning of the word "accident"...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/accident
accident n.
1.
a. An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm: car accidents on icy roads.
b. An unforeseen incident: A series of happy accidents led to his promotion.
c. An instance of involuntary urination or defecation in one's clothing.
2. Lack of intention; chance: ran into an old friend by accident.

Nobody says accidents aren't preventable, or that they occur purely by random chance. And accidents aren't necessarily blameless- if something is accidental, it means there was no intent to do it. That makes no statement as to whether there was negligence or idiocy involved.

It's probably not a brash statement to say that almost all negative accidents are caused by negligence of some sort.

Shouldn't all science be questioned?

Yes, all science is questioned. The process is named "peer review". Do you know what the word "peer" means? It means someone who has a similar standing.

The work of scientists should be questioned by people who have gone to the trouble of studying and understanding what the subject is about. Not by trolls who repeat the bullshit spewed by corporations whose interests are hurt by the facts that scientists present.

This wouldn't fly in the UK (under Part III of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA)).
You forgot? Tough.
You used some honey-pot ruse like this? Tough.
Either you give the key/passphrase to decrypt the file when requested or go to jail. End of discussion.

... which is precisely why TrueCrypt (and probably other encryption systems) has the ability to have hidden encryption on volumes : the "plausible deniability" defence.

"OK, so you, Mr Legal System have spent lots of time and effort dragging me, Mr Innocent J. Hacker, through the court system to make me decrypt the device ... and I see the redneck sherrif has got a $5 receipt from AToolCo and a copy of Piers Anthony's "On the Uses of Torture" on his desk. So I guess this is a Galileo moment, and those are the instruments. The passphrases for the files you're interested in are ..." And you go on to describe a plausible passphrase generating scheme.

The files are decrypted. There may be some interesting stuff in there - say some confidential documents from your last job, which you shouldn't really have - but nothing criminal to justify the large WOMBAT that the Law enforcement have just indulged in.

Now ... the Law are back at square one. Either they accept that you don't really have any naughty files, or they get out the $5 wrench and book a CIA flight to ...

Where do the CIA render people to now?

Perhaps I can help you with a problem you seem to be having ie. story http://www.thefreedictionary.com/story vs. report http://www.thefreedictionary.com/report.

Now stories when presented by web media sites, need to contain a broad range of elements to appeal to a mixed audience. The science in them also needs to be expressed in more literary terms and be entertaining as well as educational.

So have some empathy for the other people of this planet, it seems you are offended by their lack of intellect and ability to absorb more accurate scientific reports.

News at 11, light scientific stories and light and lack the intellectual mass to keep intellectual helium heads bound to the earth.

Perhaps I can help you with a problem you seem to be having ie. story http://www.thefreedictionary.com/story vs. report http://www.thefreedictionary.com/report.

Now stories when presented by web media sites, need to contain a broad range of elements to appeal to a mixed audience. The science in them also needs to be expressed in more literary terms and be entertaining as well as educational.

So have some empathy for the other people of this planet, it seems you are offended by their lack of intellect and ability to absorb more accurate scientific reports.

News at 11, light scientific stories and light and lack the intellectual mass to keep intellectual helium heads bound to the earth.

9. Concealed or secret; mysterious -- from the free dictionary http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dark

By definition they detained him:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/detain
detain (d-tn)
tr.v. detained, detaining, detains
1. To keep from proceeding; delay or retard.
2. To keep in custody or temporary confinement: The police detained several suspects for questioning. The disruptive students were detained after school until their parents had been notified.
3. Obsolete To retain or withhold (payment or property, for example).
[Middle English deteinen, from Old French detenir, from Vulgar Latin *dtenre, from Latin dtinre : d-, de- + tenre, to hold; see ten- in Indo-European roots.]
detainment n.

"Arrest" is legally defined to mean restraint under color of authority.

No, it's not. Where is the source of your "legal" definition? If you're going to lead off your post with a falsehood, it's probably not worth reading the rest of your post.

Here's a better definition, with clarification.Key section for this situation:

The test used to determine whether an arrest took place in a particular case is objective, and it turns on whether a reasonable person under these circumstances would believe he or she was restrained or free to go. A reasonable person is one who is not guilty of criminal conduct, overly apprehensive, or insensitive to the seriousness of the circumstances. Reasonableness is not determined in light of a defendant's subjective knowledge or fears. The subjective intent of the police is also normally irrelevant to a court's determination whether an arrest occurred, unless the officer makes that intent known.

Neither the bus company, cab company nor you (I think) have legal authority to restrain or arrest anyone. That is the difference. Claimed legal authority, legitimate or not.

The bus driver, you and the cab driver are private citizens and are committing crimes if you physically restrain someone. And no, not paying for a service and a private citizen not providing that service -- even one representing a common carrier or public transit provider -- is not the same thing.

Feel free to read Black's Law Dictionary or even The Free Dictionary for a definition of arrest.

You have nothing to say but nonsense, do you?

I could say the same thing about you. Your snarky comment about Congress being one of the main threats to our Constitution was poorly worded. You implied Congress *ITSELF* was a threat, hence my query about your replacement ideas.

I don't understand you "erratum" comment, by the way: do you truly think only Jews suffered persecution during the Second World War?

On the contrary, (which, because of my sarcastic tone may be obscure) as I'm Polish. Erratum means (roughly) a correction to unedited and printed mistake.