Slashdot Mirror

that would require a violation of law rather than violations of constitutional restrictions against government

You drew a distinction between law and Constitution. There is no such distinction. The Constitution is a set of laws. The highest set of laws. Violating it IS "a violation of law", not "rather than" <insert anything else here>.

Try a legal dictionary:

felony n. 1) a crime sufficiently serious to be punishable by death or a term in state or federal prison, as distinguished from a misdemeanor which is only punishable by confinement to county or local jail and/or a fine. 2) a crime carrying a minimum term of one year or more in state prison, since a year or less can be served in county jail. However, a sentence upon conviction for a felony may sometimes be less than one year at the discretion of the judge and within limits set by statute. Felonies are sometimes referred to as "high crimes" as described in the U. S. Constitution.

No, it truly is easy if there is probable cause.

This is from: http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

Probable cause is not equal to absolute certainty. That is, a police officer does not have to be absolutely certain that criminal activity is taking place to perform a search or make an arrest. Probable cause can exist even when there is some doubt as to the person's guilt. Courts take care to review the actions of police in the context of everyday life, Balancing the interests of law enforcement against the interests of personal liberty in determining whether probable cause existed for a search or arrest.

If they are not planning to arrest someone, then why the warrantless search? The point is, if the police can articulate their suspicions clearly enough with a modicum of evidence, they get the warrant.

So, of course, it is better for the consumer to have NO company in their area.

Actually, yes, that is correct. Better no company than an abusive monopoly.

Communities that have built their OWN cable infrastructure run by their municipality, rather than giant cable corporations, have been very satisfied with the results. They have tended to have better service for lower prices.

No, it is not.

Yes, it is. It's fucking illegal. Look it up.

It is not bragging to state a simple fact, which arose not because of some conspiracy but because of simple business economics.

ILLEGAL "business economics", according to Federal antitrust law. Since you won't bother to look it up, I looked it up for you. Dividing up geographic areas this way is illegal according to the Sherman Antrtrust Act. Which has been around for a very long time. And they're blatantly violating it. Where is the Obama administration's response to this ILLEGAL behavior?

Your city council is an ass, and it is your responsibility to get them voted out if you don't like them.

No shit, Sherlock. Figured that out, did you?

Easy cheesy.

• The common-law crime of perjury is now governed by both state and federal laws. In addition, the Model Penal Code, which has been adopted in some form by many states and promulgated by the Commission on Uniform State Laws, also sets forth the following basic elements for the crime of perjury: (1) a false statement is made under oath or equivalent affirmation during a judicial proceeding; (2) the statement must be material or relevant to the proceeding; and (3) the witness must have the Specific Intent to deceive.

The reason for this should be obvious: so the state cannot turn a prosecution into an open-ended fishing expedition, a la Ken Starr. Okay, so it looks like you might be innocent of meth possession, so we'll ask you how much you weigh, and charge you with perjury if you give what we say is a false statement. Or if you've ever been in a fight. Or if you've bought porn. Or if you've ever cheated on your taxes. None of which has anything to do with what the suspected crime was in the first place.

wooosh

Teraflop is correct. http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

~~

I drive a Subaru WRX/STi, and I've been pulled over once. When they realized I was over 40 and not a 17 year old with a souped up car they got really disappointed. I didn't get a ticket but they did say that my license plate frame was crooked.

In Australia you get what we call "the personality test" which is whether a cop decides to give you a ticket or not.

If you go around with a "Fuck tha Po-leece" attitude you'll find the police are quite obliging but you'll also figure out that when you fuck the police, the police won't be the "taker". If you're polite and civil, you're more likely to drive away with a bollocking rather than a ticket.

http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

In current usage, it's now an English, not Latin word meaning "retired, but wishing to use the pre-retirement title". Like how all Presidents of the USA are "president". President Bill Clinton is still "president" by title, even if "retired".

And make no mistake, it's an English word, like so many foreign words, used without great change for a meaning slightly different than the "original".

It's not "wrong". It's language. That's how English works. Much like the original definition of broadband defines 56kbps dial-up as "broadband" and 100 Gbps fibre as "not broadband (baseband). Now, "broadband" means "fast" and baseband means nothing. Language evolves. Even in ways we don't like.

You're argument is similar to what is listed in: http://legal-dictionary.thefre... as the US legal definition. However, http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca... shows that the Canadian definition is even more tightly tied to transmission by radio waves than the US definition:

“broadcasting” means any transmission of programs, whether or not encrypted, by radio waves or other means of telecommunication for reception by the public by means of broadcasting receiving apparatus, but does not include any such transmission of programs that is made solely for performance or display in a public place;

Circumscribed? As in surrounds your entire life?

Maybe if you understood that legal systems use the term finding differently, in the sense of 'finding of fact', you might fix that cringing problem. Furthermore, while sucking it up is an option, I am given to understand that there are four other boxes provided for your use.

I realize that you're a special snowflake and deserve to have your opinions inflicted on others, or at the very least freedom from other people's opinions, without of course your needing to take any action whatsoever. However, since I'm liable to be alone in that, you might want to condescend to some action other than bitching about how shitty the gub'mint is.

From the country of Onamonapia

http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

Nobody is directly profiting from these actions.

Direct profiting is not a part of a definition of fraud.

Fraud

A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the U.S. legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features.

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

These elements contain nuances that are not all easily proved. First, not all false statements are fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must relate to a material fact. It should also substantially affect a person's decision to enter into a contract or pursue a certain course of action. A false statement of fact that does not bear on the disputed transaction will not be considered fraudulent.

Second, the defendant must know that the statement is untrue. A statement of fact that is simply mistaken is not fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must be made with intent to deceive the victim. This is perhaps the easiest element to prove, once falsity and materiality are proved, because most material false statements are designed to mislead.

Third, the false statement must be made with the intent to deprive the victim of some legal right.

Fourth, the victim's reliance on the false statement must be reasonable. Reliance on a patently absurd false statement generally will not give rise to fraud; however, people who are especially gullible, superstitious, or ignorant or who are illiterate may recover damages for fraud if the defendant knew and took advantage of their condition.

Finally, the false statement must cause the victim some injury that leaves her or him in a worse position than she or he was in before the fraud.

-- http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

Why?

http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

Oh Mr. Superior Intellect, there's no such thing as a "chess nut". The expression is an old chestnut: a subject, idea, or joke which has been discussed or repeated so many times that it is not interesting or funny any more.

See, this is why we don't hold ourselves up as superior. Because there are always gaps in our knowledge and when we inevitably slip up, we look like total assholes - as well as expose ourselves as not having known that much in the first place. Maybe you're not as smart as you think you are. Just something to chew on...maybe you'll do better next time you post. Or maybe not. After all, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

sadly, the legal definition of good faith (as described at legal-disctionary.thefreedictionary.com) has no connection with due diligence; it's all about taking things at face value. If the automatic scanning program says it's a hit, that's enough for a good-faith belief, until enough bad hits are revealed to show that the scanner is not deserving of that faith. (Which also means that copyright holders have pretty much zero incentive to improve such scanners until forced to.)

I agree with your first sentence, sending prospecting rovers is a good idea. Actually propellent is an acceptable word. Your silly attempt at a gotcha typo flame just blew up in your face. There's plenty we could do with the lunar volatiles. Our ability to do work in remote places is increasing. ROVs, drones, telerobots are growing less expensive and more able. See Who needs humans?.

Still no sale. See various definitions of "witness" which are not bound to a single, narrow definition of "testimony on the stand".

"The way I see it" is exactly how law works. If enough people see it a particular way, you get new laws. If the person who sees it a particular way is a judge, his ruling is law... until another judge sees it a different way, all the way up to the Justices, who may then be over-ruled by the other branches and/or The People seeing it a different way. Of course the seeing is only part of it. The acting is all important...

Simply adding "I think" does not protect it from any claims of libel/slander. Nor does phrasing it as a question, etc.

To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.

To prove that the material was defamatory, the plaintiff must show that at least one other person who saw or heard it understood it as having defamatory meaning. It is necessary to show not that all who heard or read the statement understood it to be defamatory, but only that one person other than the plaintiff did so. Therefore, even if the defendant contends that the communication was a joke, if one person other than the plaintiff took it seriously, the communication is considered defamatory.

Source:

Section 1983 lawsuits for deprivation of civil rights under color of authority allows piercing the immunity of public officers and going after their personal assets. In this case, the mayor, and any of the police that participated. Their. Personal. Assets. Not the taxpayers.
http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

http://dictionary.reference.co...

http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

You were saying?

First implies an order.

First can also imply pre-emption. A nuclear first strike, for example, is intended to knock out the other guy's arsenal so that there is no counter, no second attack.

First can mean "before some other thing, event, etc.: If you're going, phone first." Or "[b]efore or above all others in time, order, rank, or importance: arrived first; forgot to light the oven first.". Or "[b]efore anything else; firstly. Clean the sink first, before you even think of starting to cook..

"Han shot first" is quite grammatically correct.

Who said anything about attacking individuals? You're twisting the poster's comment out of context in order to suit your own attack.

Here, let me help you better understand by giving you the definition of the word, which you clearly don't understand:

partisan 1 (pärt-zn)
adj.
2. Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause

Anyone that makes an effort just to make the other "side" look bad is making a "partisan attack". Everyone in America should be all on the same "side" - American. It doesn't matter which "side" is responsible. "But he started it!" is the argument of a five year old. How about everybody grow the fuck up and start acting like adults, and start working towards improving the country instead of selling it off to be raped by the highest bidder, regardless of which "side" is doing the buying or selling.

Idioms don't transfer well between languages. English/Australian: "to refuse to work, especially because you are not satisfied with your pay or working conditions" http://idioms.thefreedictionar...

Regardless of the merits of Eich's actions, or the merits of those calling for his ouster, the fact remains that all that's going to happen is that there will be a kerfuffle and Eich will either ignore it or make some pro-LGBT concession and then things will continue on, the same way things have been going.

Does anyone doubt that the Eich is capable of handling the job? I don't hear that anywhere. Perhaps this whole thing is to focus away from the fact that he may not be the best person to head Mozilla (and remove other candidates from the spotlight by hogging all the attention)? That's a bit CT [1], but I've been accused of worse kinds of thoughtcrime.

[1] http://acronyms.thefreediction...

Why, indeed, should the oil business get a "depletion allowance" that no one else enjoys?

I decided to look that up. Turns out a bunch of people get that depletion allowance.

A tax deduction authorized by federal law for the exhaustion of oil and gas wells, mines, timber, mineral deposits or reserves, and other natural deposits.

and not having to import our cars' vital body fluids from desert tribes which hate us

But whose oil is just as good as anyone else's. That's the nice thing about markets, you don't have to care about the beliefs of the other party that you trade with.

Both are correct, but I suppose I could have gone with the more elegant looking variant, if that's what you're suggesting.

+1 for peaking [sic] my curiosity.

That would be piquing.

You didn't fix anything... it because it already said that in the prior sentence. You know what "fleece" means as a verb, right?

Yeah... It does...

litmus test ...
2. Fig. A question or experiment that seeks to determine the state of one important factor. His performance on the long exam served as a litmus test to determine whether he would go to college. The amount of white cells in my blood became the litmus test for diagnosing my disease.

However I would submit that anyone using the phrase, "I see a bunch in this one place," would fail the litmus test regarding whether or not he's qualified to diagnose the health of a species.

I think http://legal-dictionary.thefre... covers it.

Resident != Occupant, and an unchallenged occupants consent is all that is required per this case and Georgia v Randolph

Occupant

An occupant is defined as somebody using the residence as an owner, or tenant.

Housekeepers (even if they have a key), babysitters, construction workers, gardeners, your friends, and your grandmother that is down visiting for the week, are neither and so do not have the legal authority to consent to a search of the residence.

"Occupant means you live there as a legal resident. It does not include strangers and "persons that have no habitation rights of the residence they are in"."

Citation needed.

Such is actually common legal knowledge. http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

I went to a pretty excursive private school.

That would explain why you drift off topic. Although if you're on beta, who knows what the topic is anyway?

I'm not certain the US qualifies as a republic, either. I will, however, admit that it's closer to a republic than to a democracy.
Republic

That form of government in which the administration of affairs is open to all the citizens. A political unit or "state," independent of its form of government.

The word republic, derived from the Latin res publica, or "public thing," refers to a form of government where the citizens conduct their affairs for their own benefit rather than for the benefit of a ruler. Historically republics have not always been democratic in character, however. For example, the ancient Republic of Venice was ruled by an aristocratic elite.

an extract from http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

This doesn't seem to include the role played by corporations in the modern US, but otherwise it seems about right.

No, the crime is copyright infringement. THAT is what infringement is, not someone downloading an episode of Downton Abbey because they missed it the other day.

I don't recognize copyright infringement as a crime. At best it is a tort, IMHO. Yes, I am aware that various governments have criminalized "copyright infringement." That doesn't mean I have to agree, or incorporate it into my worldview.

The FISA court doesn't rule on constitutionality of an issue, that's up to the Supreme Court ultimately and that's what the EFF and the ACLU have been fighting for the past few years. Unfortunately the way the legal system, that third check and balance we're supposed to have, requires vast amounts of time and resources along with legal success to ever ultimately get something to a final decision through the courts. Sure, you can have a lower Federal Judge say "unconstitutional" and then have the Court of Appeals say "No it is constitutional" based on the losing party in the case appealing. If the parties still pursue it there's no guarantee that the SCOTUS will ever here the case and like a lot of times, petitions to SCOTUS aren't granted Certiorari which is a nice way of letting what ever the last, highest ruling court's decision stand or for whatever else they don't want to get their grubby hands dirty with. Ultimately the people in this country need to stop voting based upon what the political parties want you to hear and vote for candidates that will step up for our rights and not sell us out.

"Germs" typically refers to living things. Influenza is a virus.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/germ http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

germ (jurm)

A microscopic organism or agent, especially one that is pathogenic, such as a bacterium or virus.

Usage The terms germ and microbe have been used to refer to invisible agents of disease since the nineteenth century, when scientists introduced the germ theory of disease, the idea that infections and contagious diseases are caused by microorganisms. Microbe, a shortening and alteration of microorganism, comes from the Greek prefix mikro-, "small," and the word bios, "life." Scientists no longer use the terms germ and microbe very much. Today they can usually identify the specific agents of disease, such as individual species of bacteria or viruses. To refer generally to agents of disease, they use the term pathogen, from the Greek pathos, "suffering," and the suffix -gen, "producer." They use microorganism to refer to any unicellular organism, whether disease-causing or not.

The American Heritage Science Dictionary Copyright 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

"Germs" typically refers to living things. Influenza is a virus.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/germ http://www.thefreedictionary.c...

germ (jurm)

A microscopic organism or agent, especially one that is pathogenic, such as a bacterium or virus.

Usage The terms germ and microbe have been used to refer to invisible agents of disease since the nineteenth century, when scientists introduced the germ theory of disease, the idea that infections and contagious diseases are caused by microorganisms. Microbe, a shortening and alteration of microorganism, comes from the Greek prefix mikro-, "small," and the word bios, "life." Scientists no longer use the terms germ and microbe very much. Today they can usually identify the specific agents of disease, such as individual species of bacteria or viruses. To refer generally to agents of disease, they use the term pathogen, from the Greek pathos, "suffering," and the suffix -gen, "producer." They use microorganism to refer to any unicellular organism, whether disease-causing or not.

The American Heritage Science Dictionary Copyright 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

The issue isn't that it's an unfamiliar abbreviation, the issue is that the TLA namespace is so horribly cluttered now that CLA could mean any one of between 74 and 85 different things.

fictitious, adj
1. not genuine or authentic; assumed; false: to give a fictitious address.
2. of, related to, or characteristic of fiction; created by the imagination

Link. Usable here, IMO, though "fictional" may still be more appropriate.

Our rights have been frozen for fifty years. Most every communication is electronic these days and the courts have always ruled in favor of warrantless access to this private data by authorities. The premise being that the Constitutional amendments only pertain to physical property of a person which is ridiculous. I would love to see some "Judicial Activism" on the ninth amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I believe the Supreme Court often neglects this important part of the Constitution.

"The Federalists were also concerned that any constitutional enumeration of liberties might imply that other rights, not enumerated by the Constitution, would be surrendered to the government. A Bill of Rights, they feared, would quickly become the exclusive means by which the American people could secure their freedom and stave off tyranny. Federalist James Madison argued that any attempt to enumerate fundamental liberties would be incomplete and might imperil other freedoms not listed. A "positive declaration of some essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude," Madison said. "If an enumeration be made of all our rights," he queried, "will it not be implied that everything omitted is given to the general government?" source

And even other people are ignorant enough to not know that grammatical errors are often careless mistakes (i.e. stupid) as opposed to a lack of knowledge (i.e. ignorant).

The AC was assuming the person had the correct knowledge but that they were careless in it's use hence the correct use of the word "stupid".

And even other people are ignorant enough to not know that grammatical errors are often careless mistakes (i.e. stupid) as opposed to a lack of knowledge (i.e. ignorant).

The AC was assuming the person had the correct knowledge but that they were careless in it's use hence the correct use of the word "stupid".

Jemmy: A short steel crowbar

Steel will conduct electricity fine; that's how your voltage returns in most cars - they use the frame.

Renewable sources are part of it, but they do not have the energy density for baseload required to run a modern society.
Hint: read up what 'baseload' means.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/base+load
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load_power_plant

Every plant is 'baseload able'. And it certainly has nothing to do with "energy density"

Nuclear is our only real option Sure, because a GW made nuclear is so superior to a GW made with wind or wave or solar.

I was pretty clear on all accounts, try to reread it again.

You may believe you were, but you were not. Simply suggesting I "reread it again" when you could instead answer some of my simple direct questions is being disingenuous.

you believe Wiki is a source of truth for Logic

Don't tell me what I believe (you shouldn't state as anything as fact without evidence). I used Wikipedia because it was a handy source for a reasonably decent defintion or r.a.a. that I thought anyone reading this discussion could understand without too much trouble. I've understood and used r.a.a. as a logical tool since about five years before Wikipedia came into existence. I could also point you at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy's page on r.a.a., or The Free Dictionary's.

Or here's a good one - Encyclopedia Britannica:

reductio ad absurdum, (Latin: “reduction to absurdity”), in logic, a form of refutation showing contradictory or absurd consequences following upon premises as a matter of logical necessity.

In common speech the term reductio ad absurdum refers to anything pushed to absurd extremes.

There's your definition at the end. In common speech. Not formal logic; common speech. It's like when people misuse "begging the question." It has nothing do with logic. This is exactly the sense in which you used it. It can't be anything else because I wasn't making any kind of logical conclusion when you used it. You thought I'd said something absurd and you grasped for a clever-sounding latin phrase that you - wrongly - thought was appropriate.

I can't find anything to support your view of r.a.a as a logical fallacy. Can you provide anything?

As stated, read a text book on Logic (my text books are well over 500 pages each) and actually attempt to "learn" the subjects. Or don't and continue believing that an opinionated summary makes you intelligent.

Am I supposed to be impressed that you have big text books? It's not "subjects"; it's a single term under discussion. I don't need to read a dozen books to understand what reductio ad absurdum is, because I've understood it perfectly since I was taught how it could be used to prove that the square root or 2 is irrational nearly 20 years ago. How can the application of a logical fallacy prove a mathematical truth?

You didn't get your version from The Big Bang Theory, did you? They appear to have made the same mistake.

Very common today that people believe that simply looking at a Wiki or Google result gives them knowledge, and it does anything but present "knowledge".

As opposed to reading an interview with someone who worked on a quantum computer, and extrapolating from what at this point I can only categorise as an anecdote (an anecdote of an anecdote, in fact) that "we can change quantum events by thinking about them" and stating the same as a fact, despite having no evidence in support of that view?

Not quite as bad as diving into a discussion on the holographic principle and declaring it to be poppycock without even taking the time to find out what the holographic principle is, but still...

Cite! Not site or sight, cite! Like a citation.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cite

Yea, I loved how my parents did everything out in the open; made it a heck of a lot easier to work around all those restrictions since I knew what they were.

(This actually isn't true - my parents were smart enough to know better)

"I was hit on the head by a meteorite once, so everyone should always wear hard-hats. By the way, I wasn't actually ever hit on the head by a meteorite."

TL;DR What??

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sarcasm