Yes, but as a minor, she'll have no public record. Short of actually killing someone, a minor in the US (I assume this is the US) isn't usually named in the public record for any crime unless an exception is specifically made for their case, usually murder.
Wrong. Many (most?) states have finally wised up to the fact that kids know they can get away with murder (no pun intended) if their records are sealed. The states are no longer sealing the records of minors.
Similarly, 24-pin printers had the bare minimum for Chinese characters used in Japanese.
Are those somehow different than the Chinese characters used in Chinese? Last time I checked, Japanese used Japanese characters (Kanji or Kana, the two major character sets in Japanese if my memory is correct).
Nice rant, and in concept I agree with you. However, the sad fact is that many emergency service organizations don't publish their 7/10-digit number anymore. Some of them won't even give it to you if you call 9-1-1 and say "this isn't really an emergency, do you have a non-emergency number where I can call you back?"
Many of the police/fire/EMS departments that don't give out phone numbers other than 9-1-1 say it is because of potential legal liability. They say that if someone calls the 7/10-digit number and turns out to have a real emergency, then someone gets hurt or dies as a result of the emergency, the department has a high probability of being successfully sued. Their thinking is that at least if the caller calls 9-1-1, the department can use "we took all reasonable steps" as a defense.
This logic appears flawed in several ways. As you noted, it ties up the limited number of 9-1-1 trunks. What happens if a homeowner's monitored alarm system (ADT, for example) detects a fire and notifies the call center. The call center doesn't have a phone number on file for any of the appropriate municipality's emergency services. What to do? I can just hear the conversation now:
"Seattle 9-1-1, what is your emergency?" "This is the ADT call center, I need to report a fire to the Luchenbach, Texas fire department." "Sir, you'll have to call them directly. I don't have a way to transfer you out of state." "I can't call them directly, they don't publish their phone numbers." "I'm sorry, sir, I can't help you."
[Disclaimer: I have no idea whether Luchenbach emergency service numbers are published or not. I just used that city for the sake of example.]
Actually, I would assume that the "average slashdotter" is a lot more intelligent than the "average American"; most of us have college degrees or their equivalent (or is working towards one), have rather high-paying jobs (or the potential for one), and is more in-tune with the issues concerning them.
Great... you purport yourself to be educated, yet you freely mix plural and singular nouns and pronouns. Yeah, your education helped you to be above average.
How would a spammer know his signal to noise ratio anyway? Considering he's using an open relay (most likely) he's not the one stuck with the bouncebacks.
and:
Email admins just get a bigger headache when the spam list tripples. This is why legislation is needed,
As has been discussed many times before, legislation only works against spammers located in the country in which the legislation exists and in most cases the recipient of the spam also has to be in that country. The U.S. courts aren't going to use U.S. legistation to go after a spammer in Korea.
I'm not saying this is the best solution, but perhaps if the email admin gets a bigger headache when the spam through his open relay tripples, he'll close the relay like he should have done before he ever put it online.
All my spam is downloaded. None of it is sent to my computer directly. If you happen to own your own mail server, then you are accepting mail just as slashdot accepts posts.
Not true. Slashdot openly invites posts from anyone and everyone. They advertize themselves as a public venue. An email server which only services its own subscribers, whether it is connected to the Internet or not, is still private. Simply being connected to the Internet does not make a system fair game for any and all activity.
But the government does not have the power to decide for all of us which emails are acceptable and which are not, based on content. That is prior restraint of free speech.
No, it isn't. The government is not deciding which emails are accptable and which are not. You can still opt-in to receive the emails. What the government is (would be) saying is that the sender of a certain type of message has to have the recipient's permission before sending that message. Here's an analogy: I tell my best friend he is welcome to come over any time and have a beer at my place. I have given him permission to enter and have accepted financial responsibility for any beer he might drink. But if a solicitor comes over, he has to obtain my permission to enter my house, otherwise he's tresspassing or burglarizing (which one depends on local laws). If the solicitor then proceeds to drink one of my beers, that's theft. The government hasn't prohibited the solicitor from attempting to sell his wares or from drinking beer, it has simply required him to obtain permission from the parties he may adversely affect.
Another analogy: I have CallNotes from the phone company, so when I'm not home and someone leaves me a message they're using the telco's eqiupment on which to store the message. It's a service I pay for, just as my email account is a service for which I pay my ISP. The message doesn't go directly to an answering machine in my house. However, the fact that I don't own or directly control the equipment on which the message is left does not circumvent the law(s) that say someone can not leave a message threatening my life. The caller is responsible for the message which is intended for me, whether or not the message is left on equipment I own.
Simply put, requiring opt-in for spam is not prior restraint. Prohibiting all spam under all circumstances would be.
Re:Thank God for the police...
on
Worst Buy
·
· Score: 1
However aren't they required to charge him with something and read him his miranda before cuffing him?
Not at all. At the point they cuffed him, he was being detained, not arrested. The police are allowed to detain a person on probable cause while they are investigating and sorting things out. It sucks, but it's for the officers' safety and to keep (or at least discourage) the person from attempting to flee. If during the investigation they determine that the detainee has probably not committed a crime, they'll release him and he won't have an arrest record. If their probable cause is supported, the task of arresting the person is easier because he's already cuffed. Of course there are limits on the police's detainment powers (i.e. they can't detain someone indefinitely, and they are still responsible for the detainee's safety while he is in their custody.).
then consider that much of early photography was pictures of naked women and other pornographic images
So all pictures of naked woman are pornographic? The American Heritage Dictionary defines pornography as "Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal." Surely you agree that it's possible to have pictures of naked women, the purpose of which is not to cause sexual arousal? Just crack open any medical textbook and you'll see what I mean. While you're at it, visit an art gallery once in a while.
A person commits an offense if, knowing its content and
character, he
produces, presents, or directs an obscene performance or
participates in a portion thereof that is obscene or that contributes to its obscenity.
While it doesn't come straight out and say "Thall shalt not record a shagging," a prosecutor doesn't need much skill to interpret that say saying as much. Prosecutor convinces judge and jury, and you land in jail without passing Go. Even if you are aquitted, you're still out the money you paid a lawyer (you did pay a lawyer, right?), your time while locked up, and your good name. Actually, that whole section of the code is quite a hoot to read. It's a sad example of the closed-minded thinking that still goes on down here in the South.
Absolutely not. The key is in your excellent choice of the word "misapplication." If I use a car to mow down a pedestrian instead of to convey me from one location to another, it's still my fault that the pedestrian was injured/killed, not the car's. If I use a steak knife to stab someone, does that mean everyone has to stop eating meat because they will not be allowed to have utensils with which to cut it?
My stance on gun control is the same as it is on vehicle control, steak knife control, and technology control: fix the societal ills that produce people willing to commit heinous crimes, and there will be no need to control the tools and implements with which the crimes are committed (and which have perfectly legitimate and society-benefitting uses). And if you (generally and collectively) are not willing to fix those ills, then you must tolerate the crimes. What it mostly boils down to in my mind is the lack of proper parenting in the current and immediately previous generations. If we as a society raise good parents, then within two generations most of our violent crime, drug use, child abuse, etc. will be gone. It may sound Utopian, but if you think about it you might start to agree with me.
But what's the advantage to having the government draw the line, rather than the kid's parents?
The concept of parental responsibility is dead in the US. Most American parents think that conceiving a child is where their duty ends. The fact that they have to actually clothe, feed, and support the child for at least 18 more years is a major inconvenience that has to be tolerated if they want the family line to continue.
Alright, so I'm using hyperbole to illustrate my point. But really, I don't know very many parents I would trust to make a responsible decision that is in the child's best interest (unless it conincidentally happens to also be in the parent's best interest). Hell, many of them can't make any decision. We Americans today are too damn selfish to have the quasi-utopian society we had in days gone by, and which (on the whole) Canada still has.
As long as the user is speaking at an appropriate volume and using appropriate (ie. not vulgar) language, the only difference between a conversation over a cell phone and a conversation without a cell phone is that you only get to eavesdrop on half the cell phone conversation.
Well said. That seems to be an unpopular opinion, but I for one agree with it.
And cellular phones should vibrate rather than ring.
Amen! There seems to be something about cell phones that affects their owner's hearing -- they always seem to have the ring volume on max (especially in restaurants) and it always seems to take at least three rings before they answer the damn thing.
Don't even get me started on cell phones in movie theaters. They're totally unacceptable under every circumstance I can think of. Pagers too, unless they're on vibrate. Do parents these days not teach their children that it's rude to talk during a movie? At least a pager is a one-way device that can be read silently. Why has the sense of courtesy diminished so much in modern society?
I think we should start thinking in terms of the internet being its own community, where if you violate laws passed specifically for the internet, your liable for those as well as local laws...but then, who gets to pass those laws?
Certainly more laws are the last thing we need, but... if enough jurisdictions around the globe pass anti-spam laws, it will become either impossible or at least impractical for spammers to find a "safe" location from which to send spam. I would imagine there are existing treaties that would allow countries to cooperate in prosecuting activity that is criminal in both jurisdictions.
When DAT first hit the market, the industry (which in this case means mostly Sony) decided it didn't want consumers to have access to that good a recording standard, so they implemented a versioning system whereby you can only make a single copy of a given DAT.
Don't place the blame on the industry or Sony. IIRC, the blame goes to the United States Congress which mandated such copy protection at the urging of, say it with me, the RIAA. The equipment manufacturers were actually quite upset about it because not only would they have to spend some money to redesign the equipment, but their entry into the market would be delayed (thus pushing back the timetable for recouping their development costs). Congress dickered and quibbled about it for quite some time -- so much time, in fact, that many industry observers predicted that DAT would never be introduced in the American market.
I'd like to see some credible evidence to back up your seemingly baseless claim that "the majority of ppl watching porn movies are under 18." Granted, there are people under 18 that watch them, but I seriously doubt they are in the majority.
Hello? Anybody home? The SPA is not the "Software Protection Agency". It is the Software Publisher's Association, but you are correct that it has no government affiliation whatsoever.
I am quite sure the SPA representatives go along to assist law enforcement during raids, not the other way around.
Slashdot Mirror
The iPod plays MP3.
Disease-free femaleware is always good in my book!
So why isn't it pronounced PoNG?
You seriously don't read the post you're replying to? Obviously not. Thanks for playing. Alex has your consolation gift backstage.
Wrong. Many (most?) states have finally wised up to the fact that kids know they can get away with murder (no pun intended) if their records are sealed. The states are no longer sealing the records of minors.
You'll notice that the name of the company is "Hewlett-Packard" rather than "HewlettPackard".
Are those somehow different than the Chinese characters used in Chinese? Last time I checked, Japanese used Japanese characters (Kanji or Kana, the two major character sets in Japanese if my memory is correct).
Nice rant, and in concept I agree with you. However, the sad fact is that many emergency service organizations don't publish their 7/10-digit number anymore. Some of them won't even give it to you if you call 9-1-1 and say "this isn't really an emergency, do you have a non-emergency number where I can call you back?"
Many of the police/fire/EMS departments that don't give out phone numbers other than 9-1-1 say it is because of potential legal liability. They say that if someone calls the 7/10-digit number and turns out to have a real emergency, then someone gets hurt or dies as a result of the emergency, the department has a high probability of being successfully sued. Their thinking is that at least if the caller calls 9-1-1, the department can use "we took all reasonable steps" as a defense.
This logic appears flawed in several ways. As you noted, it ties up the limited number of 9-1-1 trunks. What happens if a homeowner's monitored alarm system (ADT, for example) detects a fire and notifies the call center. The call center doesn't have a phone number on file for any of the appropriate municipality's emergency services. What to do? I can just hear the conversation now:
"Seattle 9-1-1, what is your emergency?"
"This is the ADT call center, I need to report a fire to the Luchenbach, Texas fire department."
"Sir, you'll have to call them directly. I don't have a way to transfer you out of state."
"I can't call them directly, they don't publish their phone numbers."
"I'm sorry, sir, I can't help you."
[Disclaimer: I have no idea whether Luchenbach emergency service numbers are published or not. I just used that city for the sake of example.]
Great... you purport yourself to be educated, yet you freely mix plural and singular nouns and pronouns. Yeah, your education helped you to be above average.
and:
As has been discussed many times before, legislation only works against spammers located in the country in which the legislation exists and in most cases the recipient of the spam also has to be in that country. The U.S. courts aren't going to use U.S. legistation to go after a spammer in Korea.
I'm not saying this is the best solution, but perhaps if the email admin gets a bigger headache when the spam through his open relay tripples, he'll close the relay like he should have done before he ever put it online.
Not true. Slashdot openly invites posts from anyone and everyone. They advertize themselves as a public venue. An email server which only services its own subscribers, whether it is connected to the Internet or not, is still private. Simply being connected to the Internet does not make a system fair game for any and all activity.
No, it isn't. The government is not deciding which emails are accptable and which are not. You can still opt-in to receive the emails. What the government is (would be) saying is that the sender of a certain type of message has to have the recipient's permission before sending that message. Here's an analogy: I tell my best friend he is welcome to come over any time and have a beer at my place. I have given him permission to enter and have accepted financial responsibility for any beer he might drink. But if a solicitor comes over, he has to obtain my permission to enter my house, otherwise he's tresspassing or burglarizing (which one depends on local laws). If the solicitor then proceeds to drink one of my beers, that's theft. The government hasn't prohibited the solicitor from attempting to sell his wares or from drinking beer, it has simply required him to obtain permission from the parties he may adversely affect.
Another analogy: I have CallNotes from the phone company, so when I'm not home and someone leaves me a message they're using the telco's eqiupment on which to store the message. It's a service I pay for, just as my email account is a service for which I pay my ISP. The message doesn't go directly to an answering machine in my house. However, the fact that I don't own or directly control the equipment on which the message is left does not circumvent the law(s) that say someone can not leave a message threatening my life. The caller is responsible for the message which is intended for me, whether or not the message is left on equipment I own.
Simply put, requiring opt-in for spam is not prior restraint. Prohibiting all spam under all circumstances would be.
Not at all. At the point they cuffed him, he was being detained, not arrested. The police are allowed to detain a person on probable cause while they are investigating and sorting things out. It sucks, but it's for the officers' safety and to keep (or at least discourage) the person from attempting to flee. If during the investigation they determine that the detainee has probably not committed a crime, they'll release him and he won't have an arrest record. If their probable cause is supported, the task of arresting the person is easier because he's already cuffed. Of course there are limits on the police's detainment powers (i.e. they can't detain someone indefinitely, and they are still responsible for the detainee's safety while he is in their custody.).
BTW, IANAL etc.
So all pictures of naked woman are pornographic? The American Heritage Dictionary defines pornography as "Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal." Surely you agree that it's possible to have pictures of naked women, the purpose of which is not to cause sexual arousal? Just crack open any medical textbook and you'll see what I mean. While you're at it, visit an art gallery once in a while.
Au contrair! Section 43.23(c)(2) of the Texas Penal Code states (emphasis is mine):
While it doesn't come straight out and say "Thall shalt not record a shagging," a prosecutor doesn't need much skill to interpret that say saying as much. Prosecutor convinces judge and jury, and you land in jail without passing Go. Even if you are aquitted, you're still out the money you paid a lawyer (you did pay a lawyer, right?), your time while locked up, and your good name. Actually, that whole section of the code is quite a hoot to read. It's a sad example of the closed-minded thinking that still goes on down here in the South.My guess is it's an apartment. That section of Woodway is mostly residential.
My stance on gun control is the same as it is on vehicle control, steak knife control, and technology control: fix the societal ills that produce people willing to commit heinous crimes, and there will be no need to control the tools and implements with which the crimes are committed (and which have perfectly legitimate and society-benefitting uses). And if you (generally and collectively) are not willing to fix those ills, then you must tolerate the crimes. What it mostly boils down to in my mind is the lack of proper parenting in the current and immediately previous generations. If we as a society raise good parents, then within two generations most of our violent crime, drug use, child abuse, etc. will be gone. It may sound Utopian, but if you think about it you might start to agree with me.
</rant>
The concept of parental responsibility is dead in the US. Most American parents think that conceiving a child is where their duty ends. The fact that they have to actually clothe, feed, and support the child for at least 18 more years is a major inconvenience that has to be tolerated if they want the family line to continue.
Alright, so I'm using hyperbole to illustrate my point. But really, I don't know very many parents I would trust to make a responsible decision that is in the child's best interest (unless it conincidentally happens to also be in the parent's best interest). Hell, many of them can't make any decision. We Americans today are too damn selfish to have the quasi-utopian society we had in days gone by, and which (on the whole) Canada still has.
Well said. That seems to be an unpopular opinion, but I for one agree with it.
Amen! There seems to be something about cell phones that affects their owner's hearing -- they always seem to have the ring volume on max (especially in restaurants) and it always seems to take at least three rings before they answer the damn thing.
Don't even get me started on cell phones in movie theaters. They're totally unacceptable under every circumstance I can think of. Pagers too, unless they're on vibrate. Do parents these days not teach their children that it's rude to talk during a movie? At least a pager is a one-way device that can be read silently. Why has the sense of courtesy diminished so much in modern society?
Minor correction... all broadcasts will have to be DTV (Digital Television), which may or may not also be HDTV (High Definition Television).
Did nobody else notice that the specs on the ibuypower.com page indicate a 50-60MHz AC adapter? You can power it from your old 486's clock line :-)
Certainly more laws are the last thing we need, but... if enough jurisdictions around the globe pass anti-spam laws, it will become either impossible or at least impractical for spammers to find a "safe" location from which to send spam. I would imagine there are existing treaties that would allow countries to cooperate in prosecuting activity that is criminal in both jurisdictions.
Don't place the blame on the industry or Sony. IIRC, the blame goes to the United States Congress which mandated such copy protection at the urging of, say it with me, the RIAA. The equipment manufacturers were actually quite upset about it because not only would they have to spend some money to redesign the equipment, but their entry into the market would be delayed (thus pushing back the timetable for recouping their development costs). Congress dickered and quibbled about it for quite some time -- so much time, in fact, that many industry observers predicted that DAT would never be introduced in the American market.
I'd like to see some credible evidence to back up your seemingly baseless claim that "the majority of ppl watching porn movies are under 18." Granted, there are people under 18 that watch them, but I seriously doubt they are in the majority.
I am quite sure the SPA representatives go along to assist law enforcement during raids, not the other way around.