Slashdot Mirror

1. Court issued writs and warrants do not requestion permission! You are compelled to comply. There is nothing optional about them.

2. Property rights are not, and never have been, absolute rights. I can not fill my backyard swimming pool full of radioactive sludge no matter how much I want to.

3. Comcast is a government blessed monopoly in many cases. Therefore, their behavior is even more limited since they must "act in the public interest."

4. Comcast likes to enjoy the legal protections of being a "common carrier" (i.e a dumb pipe). This behavior shows that they are not a dumb pipe at all. Once a provider starts manipulating the traffic flowing across their network, they lose common carrier status, and are now responsible for ALL the traffic on their network.

5. They are forging packets. This is a computer crime. ("knowingly cause[] the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally cause[] damage without authorization, to a protected computer", where "damage is "any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information." and "loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value.") While you may not be able to say that any one computer was "damaged" in excess of $5,000, the entire network was affected, and that is certainly more than $5,000.

6. They are deciptively advertising their serves as "unlimited" when it clearly is "limited."

7. While not related here, you should know, that just because a legal "agreement" says something, doesn't make it legal. Case in point: The indemnity clause at ski resorts that say "If our ski lift collapses, you can't sue." Bullshit. You can, as there is a clear public interest in not having deathtrap ski lifts.

Page 58 of http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/FBI/a0613/final.pdf shows that $1K is pretty reasonable, depending on the type of wiretap. On page 56 of the report, it notes that $250 is typical for easy taps. However, the table on page 58 shows that $2200 is a lot more in line with certain types. Wiretapping is harder than it looks. The telecomm provider is typically responsible for making sure that the law enforcement agency (LEA) gets exactly what it is supposed to get, neither more nor less. They have to provide 24/7 support. In some cases, the LEA tries to prevent them from doing routine maintenance because doing things like rebooting switches drops taps. Depending on the particular type of tap, they're working for their $1000.

I'm pretty sure 911 hang ups are defined to be probable cause already

Probable suspicion, sure. Probable cause, probably not. Some quick Googling turned up a DOJ document that says a 911 hangup is probably not sufficient grounds for probable cause by itself, but my search didn't come up with any case law on the subject.

Congress covered that a few years ago, as seen here, second paragraph from the bottom.

Oops! From the wiki: "Malice can be expressed (intent to kill) or implied. Implied malice is proven by acts that involve reckless indifference to human life or in a death that occurs during the commission of certain felonies (the felony murder rule). The exact terms of the felony murder vary tremendously from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Sentencing for murder in the United States has a mean of 349 months and a median of 480 months.[32]"

I spoke too soon, I hadn't gotten to the part that was specifically about the United States.

P.S. I didn't verify the accuracy of the statements as they relate to the citation ... anyone up to it? I'm tired. =P

Out of curiosity though, if this theory has been proven, and games grow more and more violent each year...where is the corresponding increase in violent crime rates? Most numbers show violent crime rates descending overall. From 1993 to 2005, violent crime has dropped from 4.1 million incidents to 1.8 million, according to the US Department of Justice. Of course, as a government body they may be horribly inept at counting or I could be reading their data wrong, but that seems to be the sentiment echoed repeatedly by actual studies of this thing known as "reality".

I do believe that's the "It hasn't been proven" argument. The laboratory says that videogames increase violent tendencies, but reality says that violent crime is going down sharply. The fact that the media loves to harp on even tenuous links of violence to video games (see also: VA Tech shootings, where such links were proven to be non-existent) also hurts the "it's been proven" argument, as there are few (if any) documented real-world cases where videogames were the cause.

As Yee himself says, they can be a contributing factor. However, I'd be willing to say that crazy people will always be crazy, and if games don't set them off, something else will. The problem isn't the games, it's that the person is crazy. Treat the problem, not the symptoms.

You people screech about tasers being over used, but i'm yet to see a single video of a cop using a taser on someone who didn't deserve it.

Perhaps you've ignored the recent news stories about students being tasered for declining to cooperate with misbehaving cops. (The one guy was assaulted by cops for not showing a library employee an ID, the other assaulted for hogging the mic at a Q&A after a Kerry speech.) Or perhaps you're such an fan of authoritarian behavior that you thought those students "deserved" to be tortured.

But it's not the job of a cop to decide that a person "deserves" to be punished by being tortured with potentially fatal electrical shock. In a free society, it's the job of a cop to stop behavior that is a threat to the rights or safety of others, using the minimum force necessary.

There are good cops out there. Most are not outstanding but are competent in ordinary situations. But there are all too many bad ones.

Most are undereducated for better jobs. In 1967, the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, recommended "that all police personnel with general enforcement powers have baccalaureate degrees," but very few forces have any requirement beyond a high school diploma. Less than five percent of large police forces require a four year degree.

(Of course, it's probably hard to find people who are educated, and yet will take a job where they are expected to put people in cages for drug possession, prostitution, and the like. Better laws would undoubtedly attract better candidates to enforce them.)

And most police are undertrained for the job they have. In some states only a few hundred hours of training are necessary.

Some are attracted by power rather than service. Many feel that they are entitled to mete out punishment (like the Baltimore cop who proudly told me how he punched a suspect who tried to run - not to subdue him, but "of course I popped him one for trying to get away.")

they aren't rounding up defensless fluffy bunnies you know. cops deal with people who would kill or maime them in the blink of an eye

Sometimes. Much more often they're arresting petty criminals guilty of non-violent drug crimes or minor property crimes. And often they're putting down political protest, whether that be one individual standing up for his rights or a group action.

Got any figures on that, out of curiosity?

Sure, the UK started exceeding US violent crime rates around 1991.

The 4k figure in that article includes over 2k 'minor' injuries from air rifles / pellet guns. Hardly violent crime - though dangerous and irresponsible - but a shot from a pellet gun usually only stings a bit.

While pellet guns are indeed generally near the bottom of the force chart - fatalities can and have occured from being shot with them. I have been shot with a spring type pellet handgun as a teenager - about the slowest you'll find. It left a good bruise, more than 'stings a bit'(the friend who shot me suffered worse). While at the time it was later laughed off - today I probably could have pressed assault charges and won.

Today I have a air powered pellet rifle - fully capable of penetrating the skin, even through clothing, as well as consistently killing small animals - even cats(haven't killed anything with it, but I know it can be done). It put a quarter inch dent into a heavy aluminum pizza pan through a cardboard box and styrofoam- took a hammer to flatten back out.

Still, remember what I said - I care about crime, divided roughly into classes by injury caused, not how the crime was commited - a murder commited with a knife is just as bad as one commited with a gun. A robbery commited with a gun is as bad as one commited with a gun, so on and so forth.

Consider the permanent, crippling harm that can be done with your average hammer - would it really be any worse than being shot?

The UK btw has gotten pretty weird about crime statistics, cause of changes in how they reward police officers (bonuses depend on the number of crime 'detections', etc..) over the course of the labour government.

I've also heard that they're a bit wierd how they count murder - if the murderer plea-bargains it down to a manslaughter charge(or less), it's removed from the murder rate. I've heard this several times.

Please note that the rates in quoted in the first link I gave include victimization surveys for stuff other than murder(a bit difficult to survey murder victims).

The rest of Europe can be a bit different - in some areas silencers are considered good manners while hunting, here in the USA they're illegal for hunting, just plain illegal in others, and require a $200 tax stamp where they are legal. Gun laws are different - as is the culture.

How about the No Electronic Theft Act, which deals primarily with copyright infringement?

Can you please cite the judicial order or legislative ruling that establishes copyright infringement as equivalent to theft?

How about...

The No Electronic Theft Act?

You are a troll, and should be modded appropriately. You are whining and complaining that you don't know something, and you expect someone else to spoon-feed it to you. What on earth makes you think that identity theft is something to upset people? If you think so, why don't you do a bit of research, instead of accusing the whole world? If you are right, you can help us out by correcting our misconceptions.
It took me 60 seconds on google to find this, saying 1 in 33 households experienced identity theft. Stop acting like a helpless chipmunk and and learn to help yourself.

From the article: "If you are running file-sharing software, you are giving criminals the keys to your computer," said assistant U.S. attorney Kathryn Warma. "Criminals are getting access to incredibly valuable information."
This woman sure adds some emotions to her wordings! It's not like she's added any media spin! never! . Sheesh. This woman must be aiming for a job with microsoft. From the last link I just provided: "We know that Robert Soloway is one of the most prolific spammers in the world," Warma said before the hearing. "He has condemned them (his victims) to perpetual spam hell" unless they escape by canceling their domain names or changing their Internet protocol addresses.
Spam Hell? Although the woman does seem to prosecute for some good causes (people who use botnet attacks, etc), why does it seem like there's an excess of spin in her quotes to people? Seems like she wants to just scream "EEEVILLL" or something.

Why do you think Microsoft is scrambling for OOXML standardization? Because the document format lockin is a huge, huge part of Microsoft's monopoly strategy. If they're forced to be an equal player in the office suite space, making Office largely replaceable, then Windows is largely replaceable too. When Linux + KDE + Firefox + OpenOffice.org can replace a Windows + Office + IE setup with lower costs, minimal training and solid vendor support (Canonical, Red Hat, ...), how much incentive is there to run Windows any more?

I have little incentive to run Windows NOW. And you are absolutely correct, it's the standards lock-in that Microsoft is aiming for, because that is the essential thing - businesses want to be able to read their own (and other businesses') documents. But the potential to replace Windows has been around for a while. It's like watching mud harden, while Microsoft keeps dribbling in drops of water and stirring from time to time. The inertia Windows has in the business world is astonishing.

Gradually the government switches, corporations switch, and finally users switch. The numbers indicate it's happening anyway, and the format war is just going to nail the coffin on Microsoft's monopoly. They never even had a monopoly on servers, gaming technology, etc. so the office is their last stand, and in a matter of days it will be confirmed that they have lost that too.

Not too many governments have switched, because unfortunately the importance of an open and SIMPLE (meaning, simple to implement) standard for documents and archives hasn't 'clicked' - most people in those positions still think in terms of safety = 'paper' or 'Big Company', rather than 'clear standard'. Don't get me wrong, I would be delighted if the Office standard monopoly was broken, because that is still the key thing that keeps Microsoft relevant. But it's not happening yet. For instance, I use rather sophisticated spreadsheets that are highly tuned to the businesses they are made for, and they break under OpenOffice. The amount of time I spend tweaking them to just work even between versions of Excel is as great as the amount of time it took to design them in the first place! I would be delighted if a better spreadsheet standard, or just open document standard that incorporates typical spreadsheet functionality, was out there and useable TODAY... the lack of a clear and transparent document standard that 'just works' probably holds back a lot of businesses and wastes a lot of time.

And of course, as the demand for Linux installations grows, and more vendors sell pre-packaged Linux, then hardware contracts will also require useful drivers or even documentation, and the hardware situation will be largely solved too. Sit back and relax, freedom has won and the liberation continues as planned.

(Must... resistl....Godwin....Nooooooo....) You know, after Germany absorbed Austria, Czechoslovakia, mashed France and Poland, was bombing Britian, and Hitler signed the alliance with Stalin, and looked just about invincible, the Brits still managed to fight back, even bombing Berlin from time to time. One night, when Ribbentrop and Molotov were dining out, an air-raid siren went off from a British raid, and they had to scamper into an air-raid shelter. Ribbentrop kept insisting to Molotov that the Brits were done and finished. So, Molotov, responded, "If you are so sure that Britian is finished, then why are we in this shelter, and whose are these bombs which fall?"

Don't underestimate your enemy; things only appear inevitable to those not actually watching the details. People said Microsoft was done and finished for the exact same reasons when they were delcared in 1999 by Judge Jackson a monopoly, and an abusive one, and recommended seperating them into an application and an OS company. Almost 10 years later, and they are still here in force. I ain't relaxing yet.

IANAL, but AHEM:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/242fin.htm

The main update page about this case, at the DoJ website lists quite a few standards.

And isn't this interesting?

The filing also notes that, as Microsoft was never found to have acquired or increased its monopoly market share unlawfully, the final judgments were not designed to eliminate Microsoft's Windows monopoly or reduce Windows' market share by any particular amount. Rather, the final judgments were designed to re-invigorate competitive conditions that Microsoft had suppressed so that the market could determine the success of these software products. The final judgments are succeeding in that goal.

Ha! How exactly does an entity "increase" its monopoly share? By making its monopoly bigger? By slapping the Microsoft Windows logo on practically every OEM hardware component or vendor it can get its sticker on? By throwing up barriers to entry? By threatening any competitors with lawsuits about supposed patented code?

Sounds pretty unlawful to me. But I, for one, have ethics.

The main update page about this case, at the DoJ website lists quite a few standards.

And isn't this interesting?

The filing also notes that, as Microsoft was never found to have acquired or increased its monopoly market share unlawfully, the final judgments were not designed to eliminate Microsoft's Windows monopoly or reduce Windows' market share by any particular amount. Rather, the final judgments were designed to re-invigorate competitive conditions that Microsoft had suppressed so that the market could determine the success of these software products. The final judgments are succeeding in that goal.

Ha! How exactly does an entity "increase" its monopoly share? By making its monopoly bigger? By slapping the Microsoft Windows logo on practically every OEM hardware component or vendor it can get its sticker on? By throwing up barriers to entry? By threatening any competitors with lawsuits about supposed patented code?

Sounds pretty unlawful to me. But I, for one, have ethics.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is one example where overseas actions can be prosecuted inside the USA. IANAL, so I'm not going to claim that it does apply to Microsoft, especially when I think it's a criminal statute that would have to be prosecuted by the DoJ. I don't even know if there's any civil right of action in there. If there are any lawyers out there, feel free to chime in.

Now then, did you note that this was an IBM guy saying this? Given that Rob's blog covers approximately two things--brewing and OOXML--I'd have to say that he learned about this law from the Nazgul (IBM lawyers, for you young'uns) because I don't think Rob is a lawyer, either. And I don't think normal people go around reading and quoting 20 year old anti-trust cases for fun.

So if IBM is examining something like that, especially when we have Microsoft doing other things like funding SCO, I'd say to stay tuned, because we just might see fireworks in the future. It wouldn't be the first anti-trust action against Microsoft by any means. Mind you, this is 100% speculation, but what do you expect on Slashdot?

You can make your own study. Lay out the line for violent crime rates in the United States (available from the United States Department of Justice, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm )
Notice that the line peaks at around 1994, and then drops dramatically, declining by more than 50 per cent to 2005, the most recent figures available.

Hmmm. 80% troll, but I'll respond to the only part with actual substance.

Violent Crime Statistics; note that the drop has been pronounced since the early 90's which coincided with the release of games like "Doom" which ushered in the era of true violent gaming. Correlation does not equal causation, but the argument that games have increased the violent tendencies of the young immediately runs aground on the fact that no such increase exists.

Go educate yourself. Make no mistake. When you do business with Microsoft, you are doing business with a criminal organization:

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

You can make your own study. Lay out the line for violent crime rates in the United States (available from the United States Department of Justice, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm )
Notice that the line peaks at around 1994, and then drops dramatically, declining by more than 50 per cent to 2005, the most recent figures available.

Then you need to gather data representing the share of people who play videogames (available from studies like this http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/75614.php ) over the years and draw a line that will go up.

If you lay those lines on top of one another, you'll notice that they are inversed, that is, the more people who play video games, the fewer violent crimes there are. Now, you can be safe and argue that this is merely a correlative argument (isn't this interesting?) or you can push it further and suggest that playing videogames may actually decrease the likelihood of people committing violent crime. How could that be? Well, maybe it's an outlet for aggression. Or maybe it's due to things like, if you're in a room playing videogames you're just less likely to amuse yourself doing things that will lead to a fight...

Federal mandatory sentences were found unconstitutional in 2005 and are now interpreted merely as guidelines. The district and appeals courts now have full discretion over sentencing. So even if your claim was once correct, it's not so correct anymore.

"The AG's job is to represent the federal government's side in the supreme court and meanwhile give legal advice to the other cabinet positions and the executive offices."

Not exactly. It is the Solicitor General who represents the government's position in the Supreme Court. The Attorney General is the "the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government." Seems like a position whose holder should be very scrupulous about following as well as enforcing the law and maintaining the integrity of the Department of Justice, doesn't it? {Prof. Jonathan}

"The AG's job is to represent the federal government's side in the supreme court and meanwhile give legal advice to the other cabinet positions and the executive offices."

Not exactly. It is the Solicitor General who represents the government's position in the Supreme Court. The Attorney General is the "the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government." Seems like a position whose holder should be very scrupulous about following as well as enforcing the law and maintaining the integrity of the Department of Justice, doesn't it? {Prof. Jonathan}

How about the government just gives everyone who graduates highschool on time $1000 cash, no questions asked? To use for college tuition, buying a car, a year of free cheeseburgers, or anything else they want, no strings attached.

It costs the government something like $30K a year to keep a person in jail. Not to mention how much it costs to run the rest of the judicial system, to build the jails, the damage caused by their crimes, or the taxes they could have paid if they were free to work. By the time we're done with the difference between a free person and a jailed person, it's probably over $50K a year. The average Federal jailtime is over 5 years per sentence, or well over $250K per prisoner (many get multiple sentences per lifetime).

People graduating HS on time are less likely to commit crimes and go to jail. So every person who the bonus spares from jail is worth over 250 people who get it, but still go to jail. In other words, if the increased on-time graduations reduce the crime rate even as little as 0.25%, they're worth it. It's probably closer to needing only 0.1% or less to "break even". And that's not counting other benefits, like increased productivity, reduced teen pregnancy, and all the other benefits of on-time graduation.

We can afford a lot more investment in Americans' education. Some targeting high performers who need more money for even higher performance. Some targeting low performers at risk of creating more damage than it costs to prevent. Education is always the investment with the best return. Investing more will pay off quickly, creating more money to invest, and improving the country across the board as a "byproduct".

i'm all for permanent exile. mainly because once a pedophile, always a pedophile. there is no cure. recidivism is guaranteed.

Nice sound bite. Too bad the science doesn't back you up: U.S. Bureau of Justice statistics found that only 3.3% of child molesters re-offended in 3 years (vs. 5.3% for all sexual offenses including crimes against adults and children, and a whopping 67.5% for all crime categories combined). In other words, your average criminal is 20 times more likely to re-offend than a child molester.

Also, by proposing an arctic gulag, you have completely undermined your prior argument against overwhelming punishments. Despair not, though: if anything, the success of sex offender treatment programs suggests that restorative, educational and therapeutic justice does a much better job of reducing crime than does punitive justice. So your original argument against cruel punishments was good and you should have stuck to it, M. Politician!

506. Criminal offenses

(a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -

(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, - OR -

(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000
Copyright Law of the United States of America

ILLINOIS MAN PLEADS GUILTY TO POSTING '24' TELEVISION SHOW ON INTERNET PRIOR TO FIRST BROADCAST ON FOX

A Chicago man pleaded guilty today to a felony charge for posting the first four episodes of this season's "24" on the Internet before they were originally aired on the Fox television network earlier this year.
Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section [July 2, 2007], The No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act [February 18, 1998]

I thought they would have learned by now not to have security conferences in the US. Anyway, US visa and dealing with DHS (immigration) is so difficult that anyone who is expecting international attendees should pick some other country to host the conference. There is a short list of countries (Western Europe, high-income countries in Asia) where people can easily get visas to the US. For people not from those countries it can be nearly impossible to get a visa. And even for Western Europeans and high-income Asians, they can still get turned away upon arrival. This country is not a good pick for hosting international conferences.

You're so full of shit: "Generally speaking, sex offenders have a very high recidivism rate, so, rehabilitation doesn't work."

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rsorp94.htm says:
"Within 3 years following their release, 5.3% of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime."

That's some high recidivism rates there! Wow, 5.3% sure is a lot of reoffense! That rehab ain't working, maw!

As for the rest of it all, I already covered it here: http://www.angryoffender.com/registry_proves_worth less.html QUOTE:

The proof is overwhelmingly against the long-standing theory that "sex offenders are very likely to commit their crimes again." Previous resources straight from law enforcement and corrections departments themselves have quoted sex offender reoffense rates circling five to six percent. For example, The U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics: Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 section from the "National Recidivism Study of Released Prisoners" study highlights the following four bullet-points (emphasis and commentary added):

* Within 3 years following their release, 5.3% of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime. - In other words, out of every 1,000 sex offenders, the average you'll see "doing it again" is 53. Considering the tiny fraction of the population that sex offenders occupy, any given child or adult is far more likely to be injured or killed in a car wreck than molested, raped, or killed by a "sex offender." As far as the "within 3 years" goes, see the next study below this one.
* On average the 9,691 sex offenders served 3 1/2 years of their 8-year sentence. - It's hard to interpret this, but I'd have to say that my best guess on why this is, is due to good behavior and being worthy of parole. In other words, sex offenders don't act like hoodlums while in prison and rehabilitate rather well.
* Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime. - EVERY TIME that I quote the first item above, THIS ONE is used by people who think they're intelligent and think they've "caught me" making a mistake or skewing the facts. Unfortunately for them, they failed to use common sense in their search for ways to "stick it to me." If a person shows a lower threshold of restraint for committing any given crime, common sense dictates that the chances of being accused or actually committing that crime would be higher. Think of cocaine addicts as an example. Does it not logically follow that a cocaine addict will both (A) be looked at with more suspicion regarding drug-related crimes (and thus be at higher risk of rearrest) AND (B) have less "conscience" about starting up cocaine again? Also, note that they mention ARRESTS AND NOT CONVICTIONS. Being "rearrested" doesn't mean "reconvicted." You'd be surprised how many people choose to ignore these things to further their blind hatred of sex offenders.

And then:

* Within 9 years of their release, 49% were returned to prison. Not reported is the fact that only 6% of these (34 out of 556) were returned to prison for a new sex crime. Most were returned for parole violations (27%) or for committing other crimes such as drug offenses.
* The study includes the clear statement: "These findings suggest that sex offenders are a diverse population and that when looking at sex offender recidivism it is important to distinguish total criminal activity from sexual reoffending." (p. 34) Unfortunately, politicians and the media rarely do this.
* Between 1985 and 2001 a tot

You know...I'm waiting for Microsoft to drop the other shoe. I'm waiting for a Microsoft rep to go to Dell's offices and say "You know, we really can't give you the volume discounts that we've been offering you if you continue to sell those Linux laptops". Which will be very quickly followed by Dell saying that they are phasing out their Linux line due to "lack of interest" or some such.

This is what Microsoft did with IBM in the mid-1990s when they tried to make computers with OS/2 preinstalled. [source]

Now, in terms of the computers Dell is selling, they're quite good. I have a full review of my experiences with the Dell 1420n Ubuntu model up on my blog. Summary: Everything works, except for suspend, which kinda-sorta-maybe works. Linux isn't quite ready for the end-user desktop yet; their are still some rough edges, such as needing to edit text files to enable WPA.

The 1420 is a little bulkier than my older Thinkpad 600-series (the late 90s version of their T series), but this is compensated for by being (pretty much) fully Linux supported.

Actually, the full text of the findings of facts is here

Federally cannabis is a schedule 1 drug like heroin, worse then Cocaine. While generally the feds won't bust you for a joint they have been known to. Timothy Leary IIRC was busted for 3 seeds in the carpeting of his car. If you are like I used to be, growing a years supply at a time you can easily be arrested for trafficking and if the prosecution plays its cards right you can get life. Up till recently (Reagen era) being a drug kingpin could mean death. Also some states also had the death penalty for things like smoking around children.
Article on the history of marijuana laws in the States, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_mari juana_in_the_United_States
The controlled substances act http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa.html
Now I'm not sure about the dividing line in the USA between misdemeanors and felonies but according to this http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa/844.htm#a for a first offence you get a year, second offence 2 years and 3rd offence 3 years max plus a fine in all cases. Seems any crime that can put you in prison for 3 years would be a felony.
Of course if you happened to grow a pound or so so you don't have to deal with dealers etc the penalties get much worst.

Federally cannabis is a schedule 1 drug like heroin, worse then Cocaine. While generally the feds won't bust you for a joint they have been known to. Timothy Leary IIRC was busted for 3 seeds in the carpeting of his car. If you are like I used to be, growing a years supply at a time you can easily be arrested for trafficking and if the prosecution plays its cards right you can get life. Up till recently (Reagen era) being a drug kingpin could mean death. Also some states also had the death penalty for things like smoking around children.
Article on the history of marijuana laws in the States, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_mari juana_in_the_United_States
The controlled substances act http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa.html
Now I'm not sure about the dividing line in the USA between misdemeanors and felonies but according to this http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa/844.htm#a for a first offence you get a year, second offence 2 years and 3rd offence 3 years max plus a fine in all cases. Seems any crime that can put you in prison for 3 years would be a felony.
Of course if you happened to grow a pound or so so you don't have to deal with dealers etc the penalties get much worst.

copying files is NOT stealing

Liar, probably paid MS shill, since your type is the only one who loves to rewrite history and LAW like that. Read the "Sherman Antitrust Act", the "Clayton Act" and the "Tunney Act": monopolies harm the public interest and therefore Google has a role in this case. Monopolies actually are illegal per se, but case law has changed it to 'harmful monopolies are illegal' as a 'rule of reason'.

Read Judge Jackson's undisputed findings of fact to see just how anti-competitive MS is, here you go: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm No, MS killed Netscape by destroying their revenue stream via bundling, via exclusionary contracts to ISPs and OEMs, via conspiracy to divide the market etc; they killed BeOS and DRI's Dr DOS as well. The only traditional company still alive is Apple, but only by the virtue of co-operating with MS through a deal to give them MIcrosoft Office. That's not competitino.

Any combination in restraint of trade is illegal and MS is guilty in several countries and unions of anti-competitive practices and monopoly maintenance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunney_Act

Hmm - lots of noise about nothing. See Clinton's pardon activity to be truly repulsed.
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.h tm

-Sign me disgusted, but not surprised..

I will start with one of the wisest thing's I've heard, Most of what we laugh at isn't very funny at all. Laughter is a pretty complex subject, and some subjects are still taboo in polite society that the only one who can bring them up is the jester.
Here's a fairly recent report on the levels of Inmate on Inmate assult, per capita Federal occurance is under half of state prisons and local jails.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/svrca05.pdf (Page 13 has the full data tables)

As far as rehibilitation, I'm not exceedingly optimistic, but I would think that many non-violent offenders would be better off outside the system, give those who need it job training. Certain types of predators probably can't be changed nor tempered and we should work to minimize their damage on the population.

No. It is part of the checks and balances on the Judicial and Legislative branch (Legislative because if he wanted to, the President could pardon everyone convicted of a law he felt ran contrary to the country). He is supposed to show restraint in using the power and use it only when it does not weaken laws unnecessarily. Of course, since President Bush doesn't seem to follow much for precedent in other areas, it comes as no surprise he commuted the sentence.

Oh please. First of all, Bush didn't pardon Libby, he commutated Libby's sentence. There is an important difference. Secondly, Clinton (pardons | commutations), Bush "Sr.", Reagan, Carter, and the rest have all made commutations and pardons that some would find offensive. Clinton pardon 3 people for perjury and commuted the sentence of another. I believe Reagan did the same for several people.

No. It is part of the checks and balances on the Judicial and Legislative branch (Legislative because if he wanted to, the President could pardon everyone convicted of a law he felt ran contrary to the country). He is supposed to show restraint in using the power and use it only when it does not weaken laws unnecessarily. Of course, since President Bush doesn't seem to follow much for precedent in other areas, it comes as no surprise he commuted the sentence.

Oh please. First of all, Bush didn't pardon Libby, he commutated Libby's sentence. There is an important difference. Secondly, Clinton (pardons | commutations), Bush "Sr.", Reagan, Carter, and the rest have all made commutations and pardons that some would find offensive. Clinton pardon 3 people for perjury and commuted the sentence of another. I believe Reagan did the same for several people.

No. It is part of the checks and balances on the Judicial and Legislative branch (Legislative because if he wanted to, the President could pardon everyone convicted of a law he felt ran contrary to the country). He is supposed to show restraint in using the power and use it only when it does not weaken laws unnecessarily. Of course, since President Bush doesn't seem to follow much for precedent in other areas, it comes as no surprise he commuted the sentence.

Oh please. First of all, Bush didn't pardon Libby, he commutated Libby's sentence. There is an important difference. Secondly, Clinton (pardons | commutations), Bush "Sr.", Reagan, Carter, and the rest have all made commutations and pardons that some would find offensive. Clinton pardon 3 people for perjury and commuted the sentence of another. I believe Reagan did the same for several people.

You must be new here.

Seriously, I wasn't going to post on this subject for all the reasons you listed (and you shouldn't have either), but it's high comedy to watch all these brilliant political pundits pontificate.

Like the guy above who states: "Fact: Valerie Plame was [at the time of the 'leak' -ed] a covert operative with undercover status."

Never mind that that statement is patently false, he (like all the rest of the slashbots) gets his news from Jon Stewart and his opinions from DU and the Daily Kos and thusly cannot be rebutted because anyone who disagrees is eeevil.

If only Scooter had gotten a hummer and lied (WJC), stolen classified documents from the National Archives (Sandy-pants), lied and hid subpoenaed law firm documents in his bedroom (Hillary), or lied to the public and Congress (Joe Wilson).

Apparently, one has to commit seditious acts of terrorism against the United States before the Loony Left finds a pardon or clemency to be an appropriate executive action. FALN, anyone?
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.h tm

I don't really care what he thinks is right. he's an idiot. he's proven this non stop since he took office. Hey, look at that, you're right, I'm a leftie! Must be so hard being a chest thumping red blooded republican these days with a figurehead such as you're stuck with right now.

anyway, enough kicking the poor dogs while they are down. here is the master list of pardons granted by all presidents back to truman: http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/actions_administration .htm

Truman's the winner, with 1913 in his two terms. to compare this to one termers, let's call it 950/term.
Johnson, term and a half, 640/term
Nixon, about 575/term for his truncated period..
Eisenhower, 550/term
Carter, 530
ford: 3 years, one more year would have given him 508/term
Kennedy, 472 total
Clinton, about 200/term
Reagan, only 196/term
HW Bush, only 75.

Now, clinton and reagan are pardoning almost exactly the same rate of people. only HW bush beat them.

Still calling it "spin"??? "Misleading"? I don't like clinton myself, but to claim he was some pardoning machine, compared to all these presidents is a bit disengenuous. But I bet rush limbaugh didn't call that out for you, did he?

Lets look at who Clinton pardoned:

Ok.

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.h tm

It doesn't look like he waited until his last day in office to pardon people, even though he did pardon a lot on his last day.

What a Fucking Moron. How can you be so damned stupid?

Read this shit head. http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.h tm

A List of Clinton Pardons and Clemency recipients.

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.h tm

Maybe he's referring to this. Clinton pardoned 140 people on his last morning in office.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardons_ controversy

Um...I don't want to hear anyone's whining about Libby when Clinton can commute his own brother's sentence for cocaine along with about 100 others during his presidency. http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.h tm