Well, if it isn't in wikipedia, it didn't happen. Sign of the times, I guess.
I'm glad to see you haven't stooped to condescension in your replies...
"A litigant who files an appeal, known as an "appellant," must show that the trial court or administrative agency made a legal error that affected the decision in the case.
Apparently you didn't read what you posted. If it can be shown that the law was applied incorrectly, that would be a legal error. A guilty verdict that did not reasonably consider the facts presented, or was rendered based on questionable fact, can be considered for appeal.
So now I guess it's incumbent upon you to find a source that says a valid grounds for appeal is, "the jury found me guilty, and that bums me out."
At no point did I ever state or imply such a notion. But I'm glad that you are sensible and level-headed enough to not accuse me of such.
Clearly you believe that you know better than the affected party what is in his best interest
When the story was posted, we did not know what the affected party had decided to do in his own best interest. We knew at the time only what his lawyer was suggesting. I suggested an alternate choice, stating that his (court-appointed) lawyer was making a terrible suggestion. More than one person agreed with that notion, though you apparently do not.
Can we agree that we are basically at an impasse now?
No. But we should be able to agree that your reading of my writing is significantly different than my own. If you actually read what I wrote, rather than twisting it to your own assumptions, you wouldn't be making these arrogant and incorrect statements about me.
For what it's worth, all I am saying is that you do not have enough perspective or information to tell the guy what to do.
I did not tell anyone what to do. I said what I would do. I did not force my opinion on anyone, though I did say that I very strongly disagree with what his lawyer is telling him to do.
However, since you are taking a distinctly different reading of my writings than I am, it is no surprise that you would come to such a conclusion. You are welcomed to disagree with me, but you are doing nobody any favors when you run around trying to put words into my mouth.
Several of my tenants have had felony convictions, and their lives do not appear to have ended.
Holy shit, someone contact the Vatican! Clearly you deserve consideration for sainthood for being willing to take convicted felons on as your serfs. Have you considered why they are living in rental properties? They likely have multiple reasons, but I suspect one of those reasons is because felons have almost no chance to own real estate.
You have the right to appeal any conviction if you so choose.
[citation needed]
I'll be slightly less lazy than you and provide criminal procedure in the US. Can you find something that states a limitation on appeal?
And that is overlooking how dramatically disappointing (and pedantic) your most recent reply was. I very plainly laid out why it would be a catastrophic failure for a 22-year-old man with no criminal record to plead guilty to a felony charge, and you replied by asking for a citation about criminal appeals. Can you honestly provide any resemblance of an argument for why on earth someone should be willing to give up a dramatic portion of their rights - for the rest of their life - over this issue?
I'd say if he did that, he'd might as well volunteer to go to war without armour or armament, but he won't even be able to join the military afterwards.
This is a life-changing - no, life-ending - choice that you are suggesting he make.
However I will state that IMHO the attorney advising the 22 year old man take that plea bargain is an idiot.
I still believe that you don't have enough information to make this judgment.
I stated that to be my opinion. I did not state it as fact. From my point of view taking that plea bargain is an idiotic thing to do.
If I were the accused I would plead not guilty and profess my innocence until the end of time. I would plead not guilty, and appeal any verdict other than that.
"I don't like the jury's verdict" is not a valid grounds for appeal. You might just be professing your innocence from the comfort of a prison cell for the following 20 years.
There is always grounds for appeal. You have the right to appeal any conviction if you so choose.
And if you were found to be a guilty felon - by trial or plea bargain - you might as well be there for 20 years. Hell, you might as well be there for two hundred year because you'll have virtually nothing to look forward to upon release. Convicted felons have no credit, no job prospects, and damned near no rights. They can be refused employment from an employer, and terminated from any job at any time with no recourse. They can be refused an education at any institution. The likelihood of a convicted felon being able to earn enough money to keep a roof over his/her head and keep him/herself fed is extremely slim in this country. He would be better off staying in prison where at least he'd be fed.
For the accused, anything less than a not guilty verdict, or dismissal of charges, would be a tremendous failure.
Assuming his version of the story is true and accurate, I would tend to agree. But if you were the accused, you'd have to factor in that the system does fail from time to time, and it might fail YOU. You need to weigh in the consequences of such a failure.
If he were to plead not guilty, and somehow end up convicted, he would be no worse off than if he had plead guilty (for the reasons I just laid out as well as others). However if he pleads not guilty he retains the right to appeal. Most plea bargains involve surrendering your right to an appeal. Sure it is possible that the system could fail and lead to him being convicted but if he pleads not guilty he retains the right to an appeal.
the very thought that a few deleted images could lead to the end of this man's productive life are truly insane.
I would tend to agree with that, however the rationality of the situation the accused is in is not what I was commenting on.
From my point of view it is critical to the situation. We're not talking about a misdemeanor charge here. We are talking about a life-altering (argument could be made for it really being life-ending) charge.
All I'm saying is that, given the reality that the accused currently faces, I can't see how taking the plea bargain is idiotic. It might very well be idiotic, but I if not seen enough information to make that determination.
Place yourself in his situation for the moment. Imagine yourself as a 22-year-old man with no criminal record, facing felony charges. Keep in mind that the job market sucks right now for a lot of well-qualified workers. Would you be willing to sacrifice the rest of your life because your appointed attorney thinks its a good idea? Unless there is a profound change in the criminal justice system (especially with regards to rehabilitation and restoration of rights), this guy might as well go jump off a bridge because he will have virtually nothing to look forward to over the remainder of his life if he is convicted, and the same could be said if he takes the plea bargain. If the plea bargain involved - at the very least - bargaining the charge down to a misdemeanor, then it might be reasonable.
But why on earth someone would ever consider such a plea in such a situation is beyond me.
I don't know what I'd do if I were in his shoes (well, I do know--I'd hire a good lawyer, but I've probably got a little more money than that 22-year-old kid), but I have a hard time second-guessing his reasoning. He must believe that he is acting in his own best interest.
Well, naturally IANAL. Furthermore, I am not being charged with a felony. However I will state that IMHO the attorney advising the 22 year old man take that plea bargain is an idiot. If I were the accused I would plead not guilty and profess my innocence until the end of time. I would plead not guilty, and appeal any verdict other than that. For the accused, anything less than a not guilty verdict, or dismissal of charges, would be a tremendous failure. After all we are talking about a young man with no criminal record. If he were to plead guilty he would forever be a convicted felon. And I don't think I need to tell you about the rights that are legally withheld from all conviceted felons throughout this country. Taking that status would be throwing his life away; he might as well go start robbing banks and murdering elderly blind people. The truth of the matter is that he is being told to pretty much agree to a death sentence as the repercussions of being a convicted felon are quite fatal.
And given his substandard legal counsel and society's negative views on child porn, he's got to consider that 20 years is a real possibility for him.
I would say my views on this are far more concerned with the former than the latter. I am no defender of kiddie porn, but the very thought that a few deleted images could lead to the end of this man's productive life are truly insane.
the cost of losing is expected to be 20 years, but a plea right now would get you two years, it's in your best interests to take the two years
You're looking at this the wrong way. Either of the two options you describe are both terrible losses for the accused, because either way he is becoming a convicted felon, and a convicted sex offender (not to mention a convicted pedophile). In case you did not already know this, convicted felons are (at best) strictly second-class citizens in the US. Do you think your job security is questionable? A convicted felon can be fired from any job, at any employer, at any time, with no advance notice or justification needed. A convicted felon is, under pretty much any situation, presumed guilty by the law and can be subjected to harsher treatments by law enforcement than the average citizen. A convicted felon is turned away from visiting most other modern countries. A convicted felon is generally not accepted for employment or education at most of our institutions of higher learning (remember we are talking about a 22-year-old man here).
Even if this man might not have a great chance at his first trial for this, he does have the constitutional right to appeal as long as he pleads not guilty. If he takes a plea bargain (and hence enters a plea of guilty) he waives his right to appeal. If he loses the initial trial, he can appeal this case a long way if needed, and it would be in his best interest to do so.
This man has everything to lose by taking that plea bargain. Even if he were to go through multiple years of appeals (claiming his innocence at every possible opportunity) it would still be better than to ever admit guilt and take the label of convicted felon for the rest of his life.
This isn't a jaywalking citation we're talking about here. We are talking about a felony accusation that carries severe consequences upon conviction, which means we are talking about the remainder of the life of a 22-year-old man who to this point had no criminal record.
If you're innocent and your lawyer says "cop a plea" your next words should always be "you're fired".
Of course at this point I will offer the standard disclaimer of "I am not a lawyer", followed by "I have not been in that situation myself". However, I am quite sure that I would never be willing to plead guilty to any felony that I did not commit. I can say that I have plead guilty to a traffic violation that I did not commit, however, because the plea bargain was less of a penalty than paying the ticket outright (which would be full admission of guilt).
From my point of view, when it comes to lesser charges (like idiotic speeding tickets that require breaking the laws of physics to be valid), there is a certain point where accepting a plea bargain is reasonable. In my case I gave a plea of "guilty, not accepted" and the county that issued the absurd ticket to me left me on something similar to probationary status for 1 or 2 (I don't remember anymore) years; they agreed to not report the ticket as long as I was not issued another in their county for that time period. It has been almost 10 years now and I have not set foot in their county (or been issued a speeding ticket anywhere else) since.
The other option that was given to me in the courtroom the day I went to contest my ticket was to schedule a court appearance to argue my case in front of a judge. That county was around an hour's drive from home, I decided at that point I had better things to do with my life than go back there. I took the plea bargain, paid the reduced fine, and said goodbye.
Of course, none of that was for a felony-level case. But at this moment I cannot imagine a scenario where I would even consider pleading guilty to a felony.
... to fire his attorney and enter a plea of not guilty. If I were him I would fight to the end to avoid the felony conviction. They said he is in his early twenties with no criminal record - why screw that up now? Even if he spent years fighting the charges, and drove himself to bankruptcy in the process, it would still be less of a problem to his future than taking the felony conviction and serving 3.5 years in prison.
You need a good extracellular matrix (or as they say, "scaffold") to make good multicellular tissue or organ. Ideally, if the cells are correct for the application - and given the right stimuli - they will eventually make their own matrix for the application.
One thing they didn't mention in this writeup that many people could truly benefit from, though, is that the printer could potentially make better organs than the ones being replaced. Another poster here asked about heart valves - the printer could potentially print a heart with better valves than the problem heart (which could be more beneficial to the patient than replacing only the valves).
Why would any business cancel paying customers that don't negatively impact operations?
They do it so they can tell the paying customers that they have to purchase "premium" access to maintain their use level. They know that there are plenty of people out there who are willing to do so.
Many of the jpgs that I took with my first digital camera were damaged or destroyed to bit corruption. I doubt I'm the only person who fell to that problem; those pictures were taken back in the day when jpg was the only option available on cameras and many of us didn't know well enough to save it under a different file format afterwards. Now I have a collection of images where half the image is missing or disrupted - and many others that just simply don't open at all anymore.
The summary implies that the BMW M6 is in limited release. While it is limited production, your location doesn't determine whether or not you can buy it - your wallet (or credit) does. There is someone in my area would be quite surprised to know that the car he owns isn't available for sale here.
Based on the headline (and reading it a bit too fast) I was expecting some sort of cool Linux Zork tie-in. I think I'll go find a grue now... It's almost dark enough in my office for one.
I know not many people actual bother to RTFA around here, but I read the patent application link provided. I noticed something odd down in the references section:
Moseley et al, Mastering Microsoft Office 97 professional edition, 1997, SYBEX Inc., 2nd edition, p. 811-816.*.
Can anyone explain what a spam-propagation method has to do with MS office 97?
If they are making paraffin (yes as in wax) slices of the brain, it could lead to some very useful research. One research application in particular that has been of great value is tissue MALDI mass spectrometry. Essentially, from a wax section we can now evaluate protein expression across different cell types. When looking at unusual tissue, the ability to study differential protein expression is a fundamental technique to understanding what makes the tissue different.
So for those who are wondering what the application of this is, there are many.
I generally agree with what you said, up to and including
it is Microsoft who established the industry standards. They set the table. They tell the users how to use their OS
Although I'm not certain aboutthey tell developers how to develop for their OS
Because there is a great deal of heterogeneity regarding the rights requirements for applications in Windows. Plenty of very good applications do not require administrator rights, while others (including others for the same purpose) do. Unfortunately because for a long time all windows users had full administrator rights, it became a fundamental assumption amongst some software companies that any user installing or running their software would have those rights, leading to software written on that basis. Whether or not this is completely the fault of microsoft is an open question IMHO.
Maybe if Windows was a little more impervious to malware, they wouldn't have this problem.
As much as I hate to come to microsoft's defense, this problem is at least as much the fault of the user. Think of the windows users you know - how many of them log in to their computer with full uninhibited administrator rights every single time they user their computer? The vast majority of malware, rootkits, spyware, viruses, etc that plague windows so severely are completely dependent on having administrator rights. If windows users would join the rest of the computing community in the present century and realize that they don't need administrator rights to check their email, they would see the infection rate drop astronomically.
Although of course there are far too many software companies that write terrible code (for useful software) for windows that won't install without administrator rights, but that is another matter. The average user is not installing software that often in comparison to the frequency in which they use their computer for mundane tasks that have no need for administrator access.
I suspect that the windows users are probably still insisting on logging into their new windows 7 systems with full administrator rights. From what I have seen, >90% of malware is completely useless when it tries to deploy on a system where the logged in user has user access instead of administrator rights.
In other words, this problem will never be solved until people finally get over the baseless notion that they need administrator rights to check their email and read the news online.
I'm not convinced you have any idea what you are talking about.
Buying domains has nothing to do with the spam
You are dead wrong. For many, many, cases, buying domains is intensely tied to spam. How do you advertise a website without a domain name? Sure, you can do it, but the credibility is missing. Even more so, you can change the DNS record quickly for a domain, so that if your ISP kicks you out you can still get customers by the spam you sent out.
On top of that are also the domains registered for name services for the spamvertised domains themselves. In other words, domains has a lot to do with spam, whether you realize it or not.
If there was a finite supply of spammers, and a limited amount of money to be made from spamming, then a hit man might have some impact. However since neither of those are true, you have proposed nothing more than a panicky, feel-good solution. You might as well propose rounding them up and putting them on a spaceship with a course for the sun.
There is a limited supply of spammers. The number is somewhere around 6.5 Billion, but it is limited Suddenly the problem is more manageable than you think.
So you are willing to murder billions of people to make yourself feel better? That is an interesting approach there...
At no point did I propose actually dealing with the spammers directly, as you are trying to do.
No, you simply wring your hands and make excuses as to why you can't deal with them. Allowing them free reign to continue to spam, without any consequences, from places you won't go to. Yup, that sure is a solution.
You haven't demonstrated any interest in solutions to stop spam that don't involve murder. I have outlined what needs to be done to stop spam. But since it doesn't correlate with your pro-murder stance there is no reason to expect you would be interested in it anyways.
You are wrong on that account as well. Many spammers are the leaders of companies (which send spam) and network with many other capitalists (some of whom pay for them to send out spam on their behalf). They may be many things but antisocial is not one of them. And they are sending spam from places where it is legal to do so; they don't see themselves above the law, they just don't agree with US law.
Um, this is where you are wrong. Spammers don't use their own equipment to spam, or else RBLs would work. They steal other people's equipment and services to send their spam. In the old days, they used Open Relays to send their spam, and when those closed, they made spambots.
Do yourself a favor, go back and re-read the statement you thought you were replying to. At no point did I say that the spammers were using their own equipment; I said they had their own companies. The two are not necessarily directly tied.
Though really, you should just quit now, while you are way, way, way, way, behind. You've told us you are pro-murder, and that is accepted as your stance. The mature part of the world knows that your stance will never solve the problem. If you can't accept that and you are unwilling to actually read anything from someone who disagrees with you then there is no purpose in continuing this discussion.
I've argued since then, that what they were doing is "theft of services", same as plugging in an extension cord to the electrical socket I have outside my house. Just because it is there, isn't locked up, doesn't mean anyone can use it
So if someone plugged in something to an outlet outside your house you would support having them murdered as well? Fascinating. Who else would you like to have murdered? I wouldn't be surprised to find out that I am rapidly climbing that list today as well.
So you propose then to spend money to break laws in other countries in order to make yourself more content about what people in other countries are doing that affects you? I'm glad people at your level of crazy aren't in charge of our country. Your idea is about as reasonable as the suggestion that executing Bernie Madoff would end the recession.
So, you propose that you allow another country to dictate the economic harm caused by people within their country to go.... without.... any consequences? I'm sorry, but that is actually legitimate reason to go to war (unlike fake WMD claims).
First of all, there is a huge difference between a spammer living in your co
No, it's not. Not since all the ways to do it without committing felonies were stopped. Spamming today is organized crime.
But why is the spam sent out? The answer is extremely simple.
Economics
Spam is sent because it is profitable. No matter what you tell yourself, spam isn't sent to you to piss you off, flood your inbox, waste your time, or anything like that. Spam is sent to make money.
Hence spam is an economic problem, and if you want to truly deal with it, you need an economic solution. If spamming ceases to be profitable, then there will cease to be spam. The spammers just want to get paid, that's all.
The economic damage caused by said bots and rootkits is HUGE.
If more people set up their computers in a half-way intelligent manner the rootkits would be a thing of the past. Rootkits won't go away as long as the vast majority of windows users log in with full administrator rights. But hey, you're getting closer to the reality of the spamming problem now. You have at least acknowledged an economic component of the problem. Let's see if you find reality from there...
In the US Constitution, we have the ability to issue letters of marque, which can be used to fight this economic piracy. All we need to do is issue a couple of these letters of marque and let the bastards die a miserable horrible death at the hands of soldiers of fortune.
Nope. Another swing and another miss. International hit men will not solve the problem.
If there was a finite supply of spammers, and a limited amount of money to be made from spamming, then a hit man might have some impact. However since neither of those are true, you have proposed nothing more than a panicky, feel-good solution. You might as well propose rounding them up and putting them on a spaceship with a course for the sun.
And no, I'm not kidding. You cannot deal rationally with people like these, because they use it against you.
That may be one place where you have me wrong. At no point did I propose actually dealing with the spammers directly, as you are trying to do.
You cannot deal with anti social people using normal means. They are anti social because they don't think the rules apply to them, and will use the rules they want against you.
You are wrong on that account as well. Many spammers are the leaders of companies (which send spam) and network with many other capitalists (some of whom pay for them to send out spam on their behalf). They may be many things but antisocial is not one of them. And they are sending spam from places where it is legal to do so; they don't see themselves above the law, they just don't agree with US law.
So, let them hide in foreign countries all they want, we'll just send someone after them there. If the other country doesn't like it, then they have to do something about it or STFU.
So you propose then to spend money to break laws in other countries in order to make yourself more content about what people in other countries are doing that affects you? I'm glad people at your level of crazy aren't in charge of our country. Your idea is about as reasonable as the suggestion that executing Bernie Madoff would end the recession.
Nothing short of public flogging/caning/torture or even execution will stop the asshats from being asshats.
For reasons I already stated, that won't work, either. Even if we made spamming a capital crime in the US this afternoon, it wouldn't mean shit; spammers would continue to spam because they know that they are someplace where the long arm of the US law can't touch them.
But even if somehow, every country in the world agreed today to make spamming a capital crime, that wouldn't mean shit either. It wouldn't take away from the insane profitability of sending spam. And the spammers would know that there are countries where capital crimes can easily be swept under the rug in exchange for payment to the right official(s).
Odd, that your signature mentions that people are
dumb, stupid, panicky animals
While you are yourself offering up an extremely panicky attempt to solve a problem.
Lock them up for the felonies they're committing. Extradition would be a lot easier, too. (Of course, we could just find a few hundred IPs this guy hijacked in Australia, turn them over, and have him locked up there his entire life, instead.)
Although as you have rightly noted extradition is extremely difficult, especially when you consider some of the countries where spammers are currently hiding.
However, that is all moot because no amount of law enforcement, threats, or even executions will stop the spammers. And why is that, you might ask? Because no law enforcement tactic addresses the underlying problem that drives spam. For every spammer kidnapped, thrown in jail, murdered, etc... there are many, many, more waiting to take his place. Even more so, there are many people who want his money.
In short, spam is an economic problem. If you really give a damn about the problem, and want to do something more than just make yourself feel better, you would pay attention to the economics that drive spam. Spammers didn't choose their profession to piss you off - they did it to make money. If you want to stop spam, do something about the profits and the problem will go away on its own.
For a while, the likes of Leo Kuvayev and his cronies were taking advantage of the lax laws in New Zealand and purchasing their spamming (and spamvertised) domains there. It took quite some time to get the New Zealanders to distance themselves from the profit of those crimes, now it is encouraging to see they are taking a more active anti-spam stance.
Its too bad that in the end this all won't be worth squat.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if it isn't in wikipedia, it didn't happen. Sign of the times, I guess.
I'm glad to see you haven't stooped to condescension in your replies...
"A litigant who files an appeal, known as an "appellant," must show that the trial court or administrative agency made a legal error that affected the decision in the case.
Apparently you didn't read what you posted. If it can be shown that the law was applied incorrectly, that would be a legal error. A guilty verdict that did not reasonably consider the facts presented, or was rendered based on questionable fact, can be considered for appeal.
So now I guess it's incumbent upon you to find a source that says a valid grounds for appeal is, "the jury found me guilty, and that bums me out."
At no point did I ever state or imply such a notion. But I'm glad that you are sensible and level-headed enough to not accuse me of such.
Clearly you believe that you know better than the affected party what is in his best interest
When the story was posted, we did not know what the affected party had decided to do in his own best interest. We knew at the time only what his lawyer was suggesting. I suggested an alternate choice, stating that his (court-appointed) lawyer was making a terrible suggestion. More than one person agreed with that notion, though you apparently do not.
Can we agree that we are basically at an impasse now?
No. But we should be able to agree that your reading of my writing is significantly different than my own. If you actually read what I wrote, rather than twisting it to your own assumptions, you wouldn't be making these arrogant and incorrect statements about me.
For what it's worth, all I am saying is that you do not have enough perspective or information to tell the guy what to do.
I did not tell anyone what to do. I said what I would do. I did not force my opinion on anyone, though I did say that I very strongly disagree with what his lawyer is telling him to do.
However, since you are taking a distinctly different reading of my writings than I am, it is no surprise that you would come to such a conclusion. You are welcomed to disagree with me, but you are doing nobody any favors when you run around trying to put words into my mouth.
Several of my tenants have had felony convictions, and their lives do not appear to have ended.
Holy shit, someone contact the Vatican! Clearly you deserve consideration for sainthood for being willing to take convicted felons on as your serfs. Have you considered why they are living in rental properties? They likely have multiple reasons, but I suspect one of those reasons is because felons have almost no chance to own real estate.
You have the right to appeal any conviction if you so choose.
[citation needed]
I'll be slightly less lazy than you and provide criminal procedure in the US. Can you find something that states a limitation on appeal?
And that is overlooking how dramatically disappointing (and pedantic) your most recent reply was. I very plainly laid out why it would be a catastrophic failure for a 22-year-old man with no criminal record to plead guilty to a felony charge, and you replied by asking for a citation about criminal appeals. Can you honestly provide any resemblance of an argument for why on earth someone should be willing to give up a dramatic portion of their rights - for the rest of their life - over this issue?
I'd say if he did that, he'd might as well volunteer to go to war without armour or armament, but he won't even be able to join the military afterwards.
This is a life-changing - no, life-ending - choice that you are suggesting he make.
However I will state that IMHO the attorney advising the 22 year old man take that plea bargain is an idiot.
I still believe that you don't have enough information to make this judgment.
I stated that to be my opinion. I did not state it as fact. From my point of view taking that plea bargain is an idiotic thing to do.
If I were the accused I would plead not guilty and profess my innocence until the end of time. I would plead not guilty, and appeal any verdict other than that.
"I don't like the jury's verdict" is not a valid grounds for appeal. You might just be professing your innocence from the comfort of a prison cell for the following 20 years.
There is always grounds for appeal. You have the right to appeal any conviction if you so choose.
And if you were found to be a guilty felon - by trial or plea bargain - you might as well be there for 20 years. Hell, you might as well be there for two hundred year because you'll have virtually nothing to look forward to upon release. Convicted felons have no credit, no job prospects, and damned near no rights. They can be refused employment from an employer, and terminated from any job at any time with no recourse. They can be refused an education at any institution. The likelihood of a convicted felon being able to earn enough money to keep a roof over his/her head and keep him/herself fed is extremely slim in this country. He would be better off staying in prison where at least he'd be fed.
For the accused, anything less than a not guilty verdict, or dismissal of charges, would be a tremendous failure.
Assuming his version of the story is true and accurate, I would tend to agree. But if you were the accused, you'd have to factor in that the system does fail from time to time, and it might fail YOU. You need to weigh in the consequences of such a failure.
If he were to plead not guilty, and somehow end up convicted, he would be no worse off than if he had plead guilty (for the reasons I just laid out as well as others). However if he pleads not guilty he retains the right to appeal. Most plea bargains involve surrendering your right to an appeal. Sure it is possible that the system could fail and lead to him being convicted but if he pleads not guilty he retains the right to an appeal.
the very thought that a few deleted images could lead to the end of this man's productive life are truly insane.
I would tend to agree with that, however the rationality of the situation the accused is in is not what I was commenting on.
From my point of view it is critical to the situation. We're not talking about a misdemeanor charge here. We are talking about a life-altering (argument could be made for it really being life-ending) charge.
All I'm saying is that, given the reality that the accused currently faces, I can't see how taking the plea bargain is idiotic. It might very well be idiotic, but I if not seen enough information to make that determination.
Place yourself in his situation for the moment. Imagine yourself as a 22-year-old man with no criminal record, facing felony charges. Keep in mind that the job market sucks right now for a lot of well-qualified workers. Would you be willing to sacrifice the rest of your life because your appointed attorney thinks its a good idea? Unless there is a profound change in the criminal justice system (especially with regards to rehabilitation and restoration of rights), this guy might as well go jump off a bridge because he will have virtually nothing to look forward to over the remainder of his life if he is convicted, and the same could be said if he takes the plea bargain. If the plea bargain involved - at the very least - bargaining the charge down to a misdemeanor, then it might be reasonable.
But why on earth someone would ever consider such a plea in such a situation is beyond me.
I don't know what I'd do if I were in his shoes (well, I do know--I'd hire a good lawyer, but I've probably got a little more money than that 22-year-old kid), but I have a hard time second-guessing his reasoning. He must believe that he is acting in his own best interest.
Well, naturally IANAL. Furthermore, I am not being charged with a felony. However I will state that IMHO the attorney advising the 22 year old man take that plea bargain is an idiot. If I were the accused I would plead not guilty and profess my innocence until the end of time. I would plead not guilty, and appeal any verdict other than that. For the accused, anything less than a not guilty verdict, or dismissal of charges, would be a tremendous failure. After all we are talking about a young man with no criminal record. If he were to plead guilty he would forever be a convicted felon. And I don't think I need to tell you about the rights that are legally withheld from all conviceted felons throughout this country. Taking that status would be throwing his life away; he might as well go start robbing banks and murdering elderly blind people. The truth of the matter is that he is being told to pretty much agree to a death sentence as the repercussions of being a convicted felon are quite fatal.
And given his substandard legal counsel and society's negative views on child porn, he's got to consider that 20 years is a real possibility for him.
I would say my views on this are far more concerned with the former than the latter. I am no defender of kiddie porn, but the very thought that a few deleted images could lead to the end of this man's productive life are truly insane.
the cost of losing is expected to be 20 years, but a plea right now would get you two years, it's in your best interests to take the two years
You're looking at this the wrong way. Either of the two options you describe are both terrible losses for the accused, because either way he is becoming a convicted felon, and a convicted sex offender (not to mention a convicted pedophile). In case you did not already know this, convicted felons are (at best) strictly second-class citizens in the US. Do you think your job security is questionable? A convicted felon can be fired from any job, at any employer, at any time, with no advance notice or justification needed. A convicted felon is, under pretty much any situation, presumed guilty by the law and can be subjected to harsher treatments by law enforcement than the average citizen. A convicted felon is turned away from visiting most other modern countries. A convicted felon is generally not accepted for employment or education at most of our institutions of higher learning (remember we are talking about a 22-year-old man here).
Even if this man might not have a great chance at his first trial for this, he does have the constitutional right to appeal as long as he pleads not guilty. If he takes a plea bargain (and hence enters a plea of guilty) he waives his right to appeal. If he loses the initial trial, he can appeal this case a long way if needed, and it would be in his best interest to do so.
This man has everything to lose by taking that plea bargain. Even if he were to go through multiple years of appeals (claiming his innocence at every possible opportunity) it would still be better than to ever admit guilt and take the label of convicted felon for the rest of his life.
This isn't a jaywalking citation we're talking about here. We are talking about a felony accusation that carries severe consequences upon conviction, which means we are talking about the remainder of the life of a 22-year-old man who to this point had no criminal record.
If you're innocent and your lawyer says "cop a plea" your next words should always be "you're fired".
Of course at this point I will offer the standard disclaimer of "I am not a lawyer", followed by "I have not been in that situation myself". However, I am quite sure that I would never be willing to plead guilty to any felony that I did not commit. I can say that I have plead guilty to a traffic violation that I did not commit, however, because the plea bargain was less of a penalty than paying the ticket outright (which would be full admission of guilt).
From my point of view, when it comes to lesser charges (like idiotic speeding tickets that require breaking the laws of physics to be valid), there is a certain point where accepting a plea bargain is reasonable. In my case I gave a plea of "guilty, not accepted" and the county that issued the absurd ticket to me left me on something similar to probationary status for 1 or 2 (I don't remember anymore) years; they agreed to not report the ticket as long as I was not issued another in their county for that time period. It has been almost 10 years now and I have not set foot in their county (or been issued a speeding ticket anywhere else) since.
The other option that was given to me in the courtroom the day I went to contest my ticket was to schedule a court appearance to argue my case in front of a judge. That county was around an hour's drive from home, I decided at that point I had better things to do with my life than go back there. I took the plea bargain, paid the reduced fine, and said goodbye.
Of course, none of that was for a felony-level case. But at this moment I cannot imagine a scenario where I would even consider pleading guilty to a felony.
... to fire his attorney and enter a plea of not guilty. If I were him I would fight to the end to avoid the felony conviction. They said he is in his early twenties with no criminal record - why screw that up now? Even if he spent years fighting the charges, and drove himself to bankruptcy in the process, it would still be less of a problem to his future than taking the felony conviction and serving 3.5 years in prison.
You need a good extracellular matrix (or as they say, "scaffold") to make good multicellular tissue or organ. Ideally, if the cells are correct for the application - and given the right stimuli - they will eventually make their own matrix for the application.
One thing they didn't mention in this writeup that many people could truly benefit from, though, is that the printer could potentially make better organs than the ones being replaced. Another poster here asked about heart valves - the printer could potentially print a heart with better valves than the problem heart (which could be more beneficial to the patient than replacing only the valves).
Why would any business cancel paying customers that don't negatively impact operations?
They do it so they can tell the paying customers that they have to purchase "premium" access to maintain their use level. They know that there are plenty of people out there who are willing to do so.
Many of the jpgs that I took with my first digital camera were damaged or destroyed to bit corruption. I doubt I'm the only person who fell to that problem; those pictures were taken back in the day when jpg was the only option available on cameras and many of us didn't know well enough to save it under a different file format afterwards. Now I have a collection of images where half the image is missing or disrupted - and many others that just simply don't open at all anymore.
The summary implies that the BMW M6 is in limited release. While it is limited production, your location doesn't determine whether or not you can buy it - your wallet (or credit) does. There is someone in my area would be quite surprised to know that the car he owns isn't available for sale here.
Based on the headline (and reading it a bit too fast) I was expecting some sort of cool Linux Zork tie-in. I think I'll go find a grue now... It's almost dark enough in my office for one.
Or slashdot would go broke in a hurry.
Moseley et al, Mastering Microsoft Office 97 professional edition, 1997, SYBEX Inc., 2nd edition, p. 811-816.* .
Can anyone explain what a spam-propagation method has to do with MS office 97?
If they are making paraffin (yes as in wax) slices of the brain, it could lead to some very useful research. One research application in particular that has been of great value is tissue MALDI mass spectrometry. Essentially, from a wax section we can now evaluate protein expression across different cell types. When looking at unusual tissue, the ability to study differential protein expression is a fundamental technique to understanding what makes the tissue different.
So for those who are wondering what the application of this is, there are many.
it is Microsoft who established the industry standards. They set the table. They tell the users how to use their OS
Although I'm not certain aboutthey tell developers how to develop for their OS
Because there is a great deal of heterogeneity regarding the rights requirements for applications in Windows. Plenty of very good applications do not require administrator rights, while others (including others for the same purpose) do. Unfortunately because for a long time all windows users had full administrator rights, it became a fundamental assumption amongst some software companies that any user installing or running their software would have those rights, leading to software written on that basis. Whether or not this is completely the fault of microsoft is an open question IMHO.
Maybe if Windows was a little more impervious to malware, they wouldn't have this problem.
As much as I hate to come to microsoft's defense, this problem is at least as much the fault of the user. Think of the windows users you know - how many of them log in to their computer with full uninhibited administrator rights every single time they user their computer? The vast majority of malware, rootkits, spyware, viruses, etc that plague windows so severely are completely dependent on having administrator rights. If windows users would join the rest of the computing community in the present century and realize that they don't need administrator rights to check their email, they would see the infection rate drop astronomically.
Although of course there are far too many software companies that write terrible code (for useful software) for windows that won't install without administrator rights, but that is another matter. The average user is not installing software that often in comparison to the frequency in which they use their computer for mundane tasks that have no need for administrator access.
I suspect that the windows users are probably still insisting on logging into their new windows 7 systems with full administrator rights. From what I have seen, >90% of malware is completely useless when it tries to deploy on a system where the logged in user has user access instead of administrator rights.
In other words, this problem will never be solved until people finally get over the baseless notion that they need administrator rights to check their email and read the news online.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I'm not convinced you have any idea what you are talking about.
Buying domains has nothing to do with the spam
You are dead wrong. For many, many, cases, buying domains is intensely tied to spam. How do you advertise a website without a domain name? Sure, you can do it, but the credibility is missing. Even more so, you can change the DNS record quickly for a domain, so that if your ISP kicks you out you can still get customers by the spam you sent out.
On top of that are also the domains registered for name services for the spamvertised domains themselves. In other words, domains has a lot to do with spam, whether you realize it or not.
If there was a finite supply of spammers, and a limited amount of money to be made from spamming, then a hit man might have some impact. However since neither of those are true, you have proposed nothing more than a panicky, feel-good solution. You might as well propose rounding them up and putting them on a spaceship with a course for the sun.
There is a limited supply of spammers. The number is somewhere around 6.5 Billion, but it is limited
Suddenly the problem is more manageable than you think.
So you are willing to murder billions of people to make yourself feel better? That is an interesting approach there...
At no point did I propose actually dealing with the spammers directly, as you are trying to do.
No, you simply wring your hands and make excuses as to why you can't deal with them. Allowing them free reign to continue to spam, without any consequences, from places you won't go to. Yup, that sure is a solution.
You haven't demonstrated any interest in solutions to stop spam that don't involve murder. I have outlined what needs to be done to stop spam. But since it doesn't correlate with your pro-murder stance there is no reason to expect you would be interested in it anyways.
You are wrong on that account as well. Many spammers are the leaders of companies (which send spam) and network with many other capitalists (some of whom pay for them to send out spam on their behalf). They may be many things but antisocial is not one of them. And they are sending spam from places where it is legal to do so; they don't see themselves above the law, they just don't agree with US law.
Um, this is where you are wrong. Spammers don't use their own equipment to spam, or else RBLs would work. They steal other people's equipment and services to send their spam. In the old days, they used Open Relays to send their spam, and when those closed, they made spambots.
Do yourself a favor, go back and re-read the statement you thought you were replying to. At no point did I say that the spammers were using their own equipment; I said they had their own companies. The two are not necessarily directly tied.
Though really, you should just quit now, while you are way, way, way, way, behind. You've told us you are pro-murder, and that is accepted as your stance. The mature part of the world knows that your stance will never solve the problem. If you can't accept that and you are unwilling to actually read anything from someone who disagrees with you then there is no purpose in continuing this discussion.
I've argued since then, that what they were doing is "theft of services", same as plugging in an extension cord to the electrical socket I have outside my house. Just because it is there, isn't locked up, doesn't mean anyone can use it
So if someone plugged in something to an outlet outside your house you would support having them murdered as well? Fascinating. Who else would you like to have murdered? I wouldn't be surprised to find out that I am rapidly climbing that list today as well.
So you propose then to spend money to break laws in other countries in order to make yourself more content about what people in other countries are doing that affects you? I'm glad people at your level of crazy aren't in charge of our country. Your idea is about as reasonable as the suggestion that executing Bernie Madoff would end the recession.
So, you propose that you allow another country to dictate the economic harm caused by people within their country to go .... without .... any consequences? I'm sorry, but that is actually legitimate reason to go to war (unlike fake WMD claims).
First of all, there is a huge difference between a spammer living in your co
spam is an economic problem
No, it's not. Not since all the ways to do it without committing felonies were stopped. Spamming today is organized crime.
But why is the spam sent out? The answer is extremely simple.
Economics
Spam is sent because it is profitable. No matter what you tell yourself, spam isn't sent to you to piss you off, flood your inbox, waste your time, or anything like that. Spam is sent to make money.
Hence spam is an economic problem, and if you want to truly deal with it, you need an economic solution. If spamming ceases to be profitable, then there will cease to be spam. The spammers just want to get paid, that's all.
The economic damage caused by said bots and rootkits is HUGE.
If more people set up their computers in a half-way intelligent manner the rootkits would be a thing of the past. Rootkits won't go away as long as the vast majority of windows users log in with full administrator rights. But hey, you're getting closer to the reality of the spamming problem now. You have at least acknowledged an economic component of the problem. Let's see if you find reality from there...
In the US Constitution, we have the ability to issue letters of marque, which can be used to fight this economic piracy. All we need to do is issue a couple of these letters of marque and let the bastards die a miserable horrible death at the hands of soldiers of fortune.
Nope. Another swing and another miss. International hit men will not solve the problem.
If there was a finite supply of spammers, and a limited amount of money to be made from spamming, then a hit man might have some impact. However since neither of those are true, you have proposed nothing more than a panicky, feel-good solution. You might as well propose rounding them up and putting them on a spaceship with a course for the sun.
And no, I'm not kidding. You cannot deal rationally with people like these, because they use it against you.
That may be one place where you have me wrong. At no point did I propose actually dealing with the spammers directly, as you are trying to do.
You cannot deal with anti social people using normal means. They are anti social because they don't think the rules apply to them, and will use the rules they want against you.
You are wrong on that account as well. Many spammers are the leaders of companies (which send spam) and network with many other capitalists (some of whom pay for them to send out spam on their behalf). They may be many things but antisocial is not one of them. And they are sending spam from places where it is legal to do so; they don't see themselves above the law, they just don't agree with US law.
So, let them hide in foreign countries all they want, we'll just send someone after them there. If the other country doesn't like it, then they have to do something about it or STFU.
So you propose then to spend money to break laws in other countries in order to make yourself more content about what people in other countries are doing that affects you? I'm glad people at your level of crazy aren't in charge of our country. Your idea is about as reasonable as the suggestion that executing Bernie Madoff would end the recession.
Nothing short of public flogging/caning/torture or even execution will stop the asshats from being asshats.
For reasons I already stated, that won't work, either. Even if we made spamming a capital crime in the US this afternoon, it wouldn't mean shit; spammers would continue to spam because they know that they are someplace where the long arm of the US law can't touch them.
But even if somehow, every country in the world agreed today to make spamming a capital crime, that wouldn't mean shit either. It wouldn't take away from the insane profitability of sending spam. And the spammers would know that there are countries where capital crimes can easily be swept under the rug in exchange for payment to the right official(s).
Odd, that your signature mentions that people are
dumb, stupid, panicky animals
While you are yourself offering up an extremely panicky attempt to solve a problem.
Lock them up for the felonies they're committing. Extradition would be a lot easier, too. (Of course, we could just find a few hundred IPs this guy hijacked in Australia, turn them over, and have him locked up there his entire life, instead.)
Although as you have rightly noted extradition is extremely difficult, especially when you consider some of the countries where spammers are currently hiding.
However, that is all moot because no amount of law enforcement, threats, or even executions will stop the spammers. And why is that, you might ask? Because no law enforcement tactic addresses the underlying problem that drives spam. For every spammer kidnapped, thrown in jail, murdered, etc... there are many, many, more waiting to take his place. Even more so, there are many people who want his money.
In short, spam is an economic problem. If you really give a damn about the problem, and want to do something more than just make yourself feel better, you would pay attention to the economics that drive spam. Spammers didn't choose their profession to piss you off - they did it to make money. If you want to stop spam, do something about the profits and the problem will go away on its own.
For a while, the likes of Leo Kuvayev and his cronies were taking advantage of the lax laws in New Zealand and purchasing their spamming (and spamvertised) domains there. It took quite some time to get the New Zealanders to distance themselves from the profit of those crimes, now it is encouraging to see they are taking a more active anti-spam stance.
Its too bad that in the end this all won't be worth squat.