That's what I don't get. Why isn't Monsanto spewing nuisance out into everybody's air? It's like they're sending little lawsuits out into the air and if they land on your property you are either obligated to clean them up or pay Monsanto. Isn't that what a fucking nuisance is.
You've seen phase one. The courts are split on the issue of whether or not a person can be compelled to provide their password. That's what the arguments have been about, so far.
Okay. The Lady has been compelled. Her lawyer says that she doesn't remember the password. The burden is on the prosecutor to prove that she does remember. How is the prosecutor going to meet that burden without putting the lady on the stand and having her testify about her mental state (memory)? No question about it, that would be a BIG 5th Amendment no-no.
The power to investigate is the power to DESTROY. Let that sink in.
We don't want a society where the loudest bunch of shrieking zealots can pressure a criminal investigation by the mere weight of numbers. We've elected Obama and he's nominated holder and we've told him there's a big problem. We need to trust them to do the right thing.
You might not like the idea of trusting them, but there isn't a better alternative.
We are on the verge of a material printing revolution. Sure, we'll need software, but the machines that make the machines will be everything.
In the 1800s, Great Britain was awash in capital that they invested in US hardware. Thank you , Great Britain! If we now throw out hardware development capital at foreign countries, we will benefit them far more than us. We get paper; they get powerful stuff. Not a good long term strategy. And any idea that Americans are going to be better coders than foreigners in the long run is profoundly stupid.
Foreigners will write the code for the hardware that they design and make, Wall Streeters will get rich on the transactions (just like the happy dudes on the London Exchange in the 1800s), and the Country will wither.
We've got to be at the forefront of designing the machines that make the machines.
To the extent that dumping blood into a river is harmful to others they are entitled to compensation. If you think libertarians are in favor of "liberty" to harm others, then your understanding of libertarianism is as bad as your spelling.
So the libertarians would entitle the victim to "compensation?" What about regulation to prevent the crap in the first place?
I want a government that will protect me from noxious substances.
Just because you have a customer (even a preferred customer) in a given country, doesn't mean you must be subject to that country's laws.
That's silly.
You can absolutely be prevented from doing business in that country, but you cannot be arrested for violating that country's laws if you do not commit crimes there.
That's almost, but not quite, correct. Countries can, and often do, exert extraterritorial jurisdiction over their own citizens.
There is all this raging against "the music industry" and the "film industry." Meanwhile the people doing all the raging are soaking or craving up the products of those industries like mad. Isn't that hypocritical?
I have no problem with the music and film industries vigorously protecting their rights. But I am extremely pissed off that those rights extend for so damn long.
I don't care too much about the parasites who want their movies and music for free. I care a lot about the creative people who want to be able to draw from music and movies from the thirties, forties, and fifties. They should be free to copy and mash and improve on those earlier works. That would make our artistic world a much richer place.
Sure it will be abused. What about the flipside, though? If the scanner is reliable, the cop won't be able to do a Terry patdown search because its no longer reasonable (because the cop can use the less intrusive scanner). So much for the patdown yielding drugs cases . ... Something to think about.
(1) Present a minimal persistent threat; (2) The US will respond with overwhelming expensive force; (3) The US will protract the war because its presidents are unable or unwilling to curb its military-industrial complex; (4) wait.
Look at the Republican candidates. They are all banging the War/Defense drums hard. They want all that patronage and they want it bad. Same with Obama. But we're spending trillions to fight barefoot terrorists. . . .
Unfortunately, without adequate due process any government can declare any dissident group a "terrorist movement" and can then invoke the antiterrorist laws against them.
Slashdot Mirror
Forgot about en banc. Thanks.
The Second Circuit is TELLING, not asking, the lower court to enter a judgment of acquittal. The feds only hope is a successful supreme court apppeal.
That's what I don't get. Why isn't Monsanto spewing nuisance out into everybody's air? It's like they're sending little lawsuits out into the air and if they land on your property you are either obligated to clean them up or pay Monsanto. Isn't that what a fucking nuisance is.
Monsanto is EVIL. The wrongness of what they are doing is obvious. I am ashamed that the law allows Monsanto to get away with this.
Brodie gells!
You've seen phase one. The courts are split on the issue of whether or not a person can be compelled to provide their password. That's what the arguments have been about, so far.
Okay. The Lady has been compelled. Her lawyer says that she doesn't remember the password. The burden is on the prosecutor to prove that she does remember. How is the prosecutor going to meet that burden without putting the lady on the stand and having her testify about her mental state (memory)? No question about it, that would be a BIG 5th Amendment no-no.
Maybe we could impose a one percent tax on porn and use the proceeds to help the porn purchasers "get outside and play" with real people!
I remember the civil rights movement and the way that the majority used prosecutors as a tool to oppress the minority.
Sorry. Can't agree.
The power to investigate is the power to DESTROY. Let that sink in.
We don't want a society where the loudest bunch of shrieking zealots can pressure a criminal investigation by the mere weight of numbers. We've elected Obama and he's nominated holder and we've told him there's a big problem. We need to trust them to do the right thing.
You might not like the idea of trusting them, but there isn't a better alternative.
Sealand would be buying major risk if it contracted with Wikipedia. They'd risk their sovreignty!
Don't worry. The global warming deniers are slowly buying the high ground.
An interesting new crime. I hope the US doesn't adopt that one.
We are on the verge of a material printing revolution. Sure, we'll need software, but the machines that make the machines will be everything.
In the 1800s, Great Britain was awash in capital that they invested in US hardware. Thank you , Great Britain! If we now throw out hardware development capital at foreign countries, we will benefit them far more than us. We get paper; they get powerful stuff. Not a good long term strategy. And any idea that Americans are going to be better coders than foreigners in the long run is profoundly stupid.
Foreigners will write the code for the hardware that they design and make, Wall Streeters will get rich on the transactions (just like the happy dudes on the London Exchange in the 1800s), and the Country will wither.
We've got to be at the forefront of designing the machines that make the machines.
In their greed, the pigs are fuel the market for hardware that remains jailbreakable.
Citizens will bear the cost of this monitoring (because the providers will pass it on to them), but only the media will benefit.
Why would we want to pass a law that gives the media the power to monitor us? Even worse, why would we want to pay for the indignity?
That Hawaiian legislator is not looking out for the people who voted for him. He's looking out for the people who paid for him.
So the libertarians would entitle the victim to "compensation?" What about regulation to prevent the crap in the first place?
I want a government that will protect me from noxious substances.
That's almost, but not quite, correct. Countries can, and often do, exert extraterritorial jurisdiction over their own citizens.
For many people, religious freedom means the freedom to try to force your religion upon another person.
There is all this raging against "the music industry" and the "film industry." Meanwhile the people doing all the raging are soaking or craving up the products of those industries like mad. Isn't that hypocritical?
I have no problem with the music and film industries vigorously protecting their rights. But I am extremely pissed off that those rights extend for so damn long.
I don't care too much about the parasites who want their movies and music for free. I care a lot about the creative people who want to be able to draw from music and movies from the thirties, forties, and fifties. They should be free to copy and mash and improve on those earlier works. That would make our artistic world a much richer place.
Sure it will be abused. What about the flipside, though? If the scanner is reliable, the cop won't be able to do a Terry patdown search because its no longer reasonable (because the cop can use the less intrusive scanner). So much for the patdown yielding drugs cases . . ..
Something to think about.
Making the complicated simple is one of the hallmarks of genius. A lot of morons don't get that.
Amundsen lived. Scott died. Shackleton required extraordinary skill and courage to overcome disaster.
I wish the woman Amundsen's luck!
I'd compare her to Amundsen, rather than Scott, but that's just me.
(1) Present a minimal persistent threat; (2) The US will respond with overwhelming expensive force; (3) The US will protract the war because its presidents are unable or unwilling to curb its military-industrial complex; (4) wait.
Look at the Republican candidates. They are all banging the War/Defense drums hard. They want all that patronage and they want it bad. Same with Obama. But we're spending trillions to fight barefoot terrorists. . . .
Unfortunately, without adequate due process any government can declare any dissident group a "terrorist movement" and can then invoke the antiterrorist laws against them.