It's like you're hiding a dead body in the trunk of your car... and you've modified it with a special lock that cannot be forced. This is the equivalent of them getting a warrant on searching your car, and you being forced to come up with a key.
Not only are you confusing the notions of "witness" and "evidence" (only people can be witnesses), but you don't seem to realize that a search warrant does not require you to give the police a key to your property or even directions to your house. If they cannot find or gain access to your property you can not be compelled to assist them. You could however volunteer to give them a key to save your door from being smashed in...
Your facts are flawed and your thesis is invalid... so you resort to personal insults. If that is your definition of a debate then, I cheerfully fail to measure up to your standards.
by the same logic the failure to enforce prohibition is justification to decriminalise hard drugs or other abuse-related activities.
Surprise...it is.
Yes that is a surprise... By your logic we should not have any laws at all, right?
And guess what, decriminalizing the use of hard drugs results in...less prisoners, less drugs users, and an overall reduction in the costs to society as a result of hard drug use. Why allow the government to keep spending your money on something when they continuously fail to achieve the stated goal and there's no return on investment?
There simply are no real-world examples of what you are claiming. But even if there were planets where hard drugs are legal and people decide that because they are legal it's no longer cool to use them; do you seriously suggest that laws should be based on financial viability? Caring for the elderly is not financially viable either, so since you seem to think laws are a waste of money, how bout killing all the old folks? Can you see how ridiculous this line of reasoning is?
You're looking at it backwards. The reason so many gambling sites are used for money laundering is because it's illegal. The old meme of "When X is outlawed, only outlaws will do X" applies here.
You had a big example of that, during the prohibition.
Your argument is preposterous... by the same logic the failure to enforce prohibition is justification to decriminalise hard drugs or other abuse-related activities. Just because criminals commit murder does not mean we should legalise it.
This is a cleverly concealed tax for people who are bad at math.
According to the Feds, online gambling is the crème de la crème of money laundering methods. Does this law mean that the US government is prepared to tolerate money laundering so long as they get a cut?
You can cite local laws until your face turns blue but the documentation of events occurring in a public place by any member of the public is protected under the US first amendment as well as an incredible body of legal precedent.
Electrons (like other fermions and subatomic particles) behave according to quantum mechanical rules, not the classical rules we are used to. Quantum mechanics says that electrons a have half-integer spin, which means that their spin can either point up or down (+z or -z). So they can pitch but they can't yaw or roll. So this suits binary computing very nicely.
Einstein re-evaluated Netwton. About a hundred and ten years ago crackpots were those who did not subscribe to the theory of cosmic aether.
So long as there is a scientific method, principles will be re-evaluated, egos will be deflated, vested interests will ultimately crumble and demigods will inevitably be humbled.
Hacking means exactly what it implies: Jury rigging with code. If you can cut an paste a few lines of code together that brute forces passwords then you are hacking. Using a cracking program you did not write is therefore NOT hacking, just cracking. So yes, script kiddies are hackers, of sorts. Just as the RIAA are human beings, of sorts.
Slashdot Mirror
You steal my rocks and then you fight over them! You stupid Earthlings!
Signed,
The Moon.
It's like you're hiding a dead body in the trunk of your car... and you've modified it with a special lock that cannot be forced. This is the equivalent of them getting a warrant on searching your car, and you being forced to come up with a key.
Not only are you confusing the notions of "witness" and "evidence" (only people can be witnesses), but you don't seem to realize that a search warrant does not require you to give the police a key to your property or even directions to your house. If they cannot find or gain access to your property you can not be compelled to assist them. You could however volunteer to give them a key to save your door from being smashed in...
Your facts are flawed and your thesis is invalid... so you resort to personal insults. If that is your definition of a debate then, I cheerfully fail to measure up to your standards.
by the same logic the failure to enforce prohibition is justification to decriminalise hard drugs or other abuse-related activities.
Surprise...it is.
Yes that is a surprise... By your logic we should not have any laws at all, right?
And guess what, decriminalizing the use of hard drugs results in...less prisoners, less drugs users, and an overall reduction in the costs to society as a result of hard drug use. Why allow the government to keep spending your money on something when they continuously fail to achieve the stated goal and there's no return on investment?
There simply are no real-world examples of what you are claiming. But even if there were planets where hard drugs are legal and people decide that because they are legal it's no longer cool to use them; do you seriously suggest that laws should be based on financial viability? Caring for the elderly is not financially viable either, so since you seem to think laws are a waste of money, how bout killing all the old folks? Can you see how ridiculous this line of reasoning is?
You're looking at it backwards. The reason so many gambling sites are used for money laundering is because it's illegal. The old meme of "When X is outlawed, only outlaws will do X" applies here.
You had a big example of that, during the prohibition.
Your argument is preposterous... by the same logic the failure to enforce prohibition is justification to decriminalise hard drugs or other abuse-related activities. Just because criminals commit murder does not mean we should legalise it.
This is a cleverly concealed tax for people who are bad at math.
According to the Feds, online gambling is the crème de la crème of money laundering methods. Does this law mean that the US government is prepared to tolerate money laundering so long as they get a cut?
Lexxical speculates about what "gems of pure ego" might be in such a comic book... this is hilarious
http://lexxical.universeii.com/2011/06/steve-jobs-alternate-autobiography.html
I have been on the tube... the zombies are already there
You can cite local laws until your face turns blue but the documentation of events occurring in a public place by any member of the public is protected under the US first amendment as well as an incredible body of legal precedent.
Electrons (like other fermions and subatomic particles) behave according to quantum mechanical rules, not the classical rules we are used to. Quantum mechanics says that electrons a have half-integer spin, which means that their spin can either point up or down (+z or -z). So they can pitch but they can't yaw or roll. So this suits binary computing very nicely.
Einstein re-evaluated Netwton. About a hundred and ten years ago crackpots were those who did not subscribe to the theory of cosmic aether.
So long as there is a scientific method, principles will be re-evaluated, egos will be deflated, vested interests will ultimately crumble and demigods will inevitably be humbled.
Hacking means exactly what it implies: Jury rigging with code. If you can cut an paste a few lines of code together that brute forces passwords then you are hacking. Using a cracking program you did not write is therefore NOT hacking, just cracking. So yes, script kiddies are hackers, of sorts. Just as the RIAA are human beings, of sorts.