Yet somehow most European police forces manage just fine with their policies of disabling shots before lethal force. It's almost as if you're making things up.
They're only forbidden to supply the drug to correctional facilities, since that market is utterly tiny theres absolutely no profit to be had in catering to it.
The law forbids cruel and unusual punishments and regardless of cruel, pushing someone off a tall building is certainly unusual. It would also I suspect be a bitch to clean.
Generally when we as a society decide that we do not torture criminals to death, it is not because we don't feel the criminals deserve it, but rather that we as a society are better then that.
Sweden can't make any such promise because Extradition is a court matter and any politician bypassing the court in such a matter would be performing a major breach of the separation of powers.
Bla bla bla. Look, you just need to look at any kind of traffic accident vs car safety feature statistic to see that people in no way were better drivers with worse cars, they just died more.
It has nothing to do with how radio works, they give no fucks, it has everything with what the user of the radio expects. Laws are by and large written to apply to people, not technology.
If most people expect a situation to be private and you listen in, then you're an asshat and the law will usually punish you for it regardless of how easy it was for you to listen. This has nothing to do with the technical details of the situation.
It has nothing to do with how radio works, they give no fucks, it has everything with what the user of the radio expects. Laws are by and large written to apply to people, not technology.
Once again we come back to the fact that it's always really easy for the government to create political "thought-crimes" however with a solid constitution there's a limit to the damage they can do.
You have to remember that it's infeasible to write a constitution to prevent the government from writing bad laws at all, the fifth is a very important part in preventing the potential abuse of the rather inevitable bad laws.
Indeed the 5th is only a part of a larger set of rights that together are supposed to ensure that the criminal justice system functions properly.
However even when torture as such is banned, contempt of court charges themselves become a form of torture when you're forced to choose between incriminating yourself, contempt of court or perjury.
That's the important distinction between the right to be silent about yourself and the right to be silent about someone else, in your own case you're forced to harm yourself in some manner regardless of which option you choose, which is considered inhumane and unjust, while in the case of a third party you still have an option that leaves you unharmed.
However I'll note that being forced to witness is a fairly rare law which doesn't exist in many other countries such as my own.
I'm confused as to why you would think there should be examples of that. Once the right to remain silent is established in law there is no point for any prosecutor to bring such a case before a judge, they're usually not complete morons.
What you will find if you open any history book is that the amount of religious and political prosecution is vastly lower in any country once the right to remain silent is established in law. I'm surprised at your complete ignorance in the history and background of these laws.
No they can't. You seem to be unable to comprehend the idea of a bad government acting legally, which is actually really common.
The very point of having a constitution in the first place is so that you have a set of laws that are very hard for any individual government to change, so that even though they have the power to rewrite most of the normal laws, they're still bound by the constitutional laws unless they have popular support for an extended period of time.
It probably is that simple for a very simple reason. His target audience isn't really poor kids that just want to try out hacking, he's selling the licences for 2.5k a pop/year so he's obviously targeting companies, companies that would rather not crack the copies regardless of how easy it is because of legal liabilities.
I wasn't thinking of variable speed signs, but rather on the westbound road from Uppsala the main road is 70 however every intersection is 50 and supplied with a speed camera, so every time you come close to an intersection you have to brake and every time you leave it you have to accelerate and every time you have to be paranoid about if a camera will catch you not braking hard enough.
I hate those cameras so much. I wouldn't mind them so much if the road was permanently 50, but 50-70-50-70-50-70 with cameras in between is just pure ass-hole.
Slashdot Mirror
They can't raise the fine that much since the fine needs to remain reasonable for those that simply forgot their ticket or lost it.
They've been doing this for the past 13 years, a bit long to run a sting don't you think?
Yet somehow most European police forces manage just fine with their policies of disabling shots before lethal force. It's almost as if you're making things up.
They're only forbidden to supply the drug to correctional facilities, since that market is utterly tiny theres absolutely no profit to be had in catering to it.
The law forbids cruel and unusual punishments and regardless of cruel, pushing someone off a tall building is certainly unusual. It would also I suspect be a bitch to clean.
There's plenty of tested ways of execution. Decapitation, gassing, hanging, firing squad, the previous lethal cocktail etc.
Generally when we as a society decide that we do not torture criminals to death, it is not because we don't feel the criminals deserve it, but rather that we as a society are better then that.
They controlled against no person present which had the same effect as female which means that it was the male odor that was the cause.
They also tested with scents from various male and female animals and the male scents still had the same effect.
Sweden can't make any such promise because Extradition is a court matter and any politician bypassing the court in such a matter would be performing a major breach of the separation of powers.
Have you heard about this newfangled institution called a library?
The policy is against selling drugs that will be used to kill people. The policy is not against selling drugs to regimes that kill people.
No, Bitcoin was never designed to be hard to trace, in fact Bitcoin by design is easy to trace.
Bla bla bla. Look, you just need to look at any kind of traffic accident vs car safety feature statistic to see that people in no way were better drivers with worse cars, they just died more.
It has nothing to do with how radio works, they give no fucks, it has everything with what the user of the radio expects. Laws are by and large written to apply to people, not technology.
If most people expect a situation to be private and you listen in, then you're an asshat and the law will usually punish you for it regardless of how easy it was for you to listen. This has nothing to do with the technical details of the situation.
It has nothing to do with how radio works, they give no fucks, it has everything with what the user of the radio expects. Laws are by and large written to apply to people, not technology.
Once again we come back to the fact that it's always really easy for the government to create political "thought-crimes" however with a solid constitution there's a limit to the damage they can do.
You have to remember that it's infeasible to write a constitution to prevent the government from writing bad laws at all, the fifth is a very important part in preventing the potential abuse of the rather inevitable bad laws.
If you want an example of recent US history where the 5th was very important, just remember:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
Imagine how much worse that could have been without the 5th even if it was to an extent disregarded.
The country I live in is Sweden.
Indeed the 5th is only a part of a larger set of rights that together are supposed to ensure that the criminal justice system functions properly.
However even when torture as such is banned, contempt of court charges themselves become a form of torture when you're forced to choose between incriminating yourself, contempt of court or perjury.
That's the important distinction between the right to be silent about yourself and the right to be silent about someone else, in your own case you're forced to harm yourself in some manner regardless of which option you choose, which is considered inhumane and unjust, while in the case of a third party you still have an option that leaves you unharmed.
However I'll note that being forced to witness is a fairly rare law which doesn't exist in many other countries such as my own.
I'm confused as to why you would think there should be examples of that. Once the right to remain silent is established in law there is no point for any prosecutor to bring such a case before a judge, they're usually not complete morons.
What you will find if you open any history book is that the amount of religious and political prosecution is vastly lower in any country once the right to remain silent is established in law. I'm surprised at your complete ignorance in the history and background of these laws.
No they can't. You seem to be unable to comprehend the idea of a bad government acting legally, which is actually really common.
The very point of having a constitution in the first place is so that you have a set of laws that are very hard for any individual government to change, so that even though they have the power to rewrite most of the normal laws, they're still bound by the constitutional laws unless they have popular support for an extended period of time.
That's because they were guilty, what part of political and religious prosecution do you have problems understanding?
The right to remain silent makes it a lot harder to prosecute people over political crimes.
It probably is that simple for a very simple reason. His target audience isn't really poor kids that just want to try out hacking, he's selling the licences for 2.5k a pop/year so he's obviously targeting companies, companies that would rather not crack the copies regardless of how easy it is because of legal liabilities.
I wasn't thinking of variable speed signs, but rather on the westbound road from Uppsala the main road is 70 however every intersection is 50 and supplied with a speed camera, so every time you come close to an intersection you have to brake and every time you leave it you have to accelerate and every time you have to be paranoid about if a camera will catch you not braking hard enough.
I hate those cameras so much. I wouldn't mind them so much if the road was permanently 50, but 50-70-50-70-50-70 with cameras in between is just pure ass-hole.
What kind of grade A moron would make a car brake to match a speed limit? It'll just turn the engine off to slowly reduce speed.
The Swedish Millitary is forbidden by law to interfere in civilian matters ever since a protest got bloody about 80 years ago.