18 years of age (17 years of age with parental consent) for male and female voluntary service; maximum enlistment age 42 (Army), 27 (Air Force), 34 (Navy), 28 (Marines); service obligation 8 years, including 2-5 years active duty (Army), 2 years active (Navy), 4 years active (Air Force, Marines) (2008)
In the U.S. and most other countries, if the individual knew the goods were stolen then it is usually prosecuted as a misdemeanor or felony, depending on value of stolen goods. If an individual knows about themselves having possession of stolen goods from another state, then, according to numerous federal laws, it is prosecuted as a federal crime. If the individual didn't know the goods were stolen, then the goods are returned to the owner and the individual is not prosecuted. Though there are often exceptions, because it is not easy to prove or disprove simple knowledge.
No; the more computers act like magical black boxes, the easier it becomes using them. It becomes harder to fix them, if you don’t understand how the black box works.
Ideally I want to understand it. But for day-to-day use, I’d just assume forget, in a practical sense, that I know about it, and treat it like a magical black box. As long as it does what I want and expect, I’m satisfied. If it doesn’t, or if my expectations change, I have the knowledge to figure out what’s wrong or find new software to do the new thing that I’m wanting it to do, but in a static situation it should be easy to use without needing to think about all of that.
Yesterday I had to take a screwdriver to a server because the incantation I typed at the command line wasn’t working the way it should have. I’d have much preferred to not need to get my hands dirty, so to speak.
No; exactly the opposite... “ideally the update could be applied in the background”? About freaking time someone figured that out.
If they can find a way to do it without opening security holes, I’m all for it. Hell... there’s nothing dumber, IMHO, than restarting my browser just to install the update that it downloaded.
Make it optional. You want to vet each update? Fine. You want to turn it on and forget about it? Also fine. We have auto bill-pay so we don’t even have to think about it and we won’t get late fees; we have auto-update on our antivirus so we don’t even have to think about it and we hopefully don’t catch the latest greatest virus because our definitions were a day or two old; why do we have to decide how often we restart our browser (or OS) based on its update releases?
I will freely admit that I don’t like the fact that the only thing we have to charge him with is rape. But then, the only we have to charge with for consensual sex with a 15-year-old is statutory rape: statutory (the-law-says-it’s) rape. Rape is pretty clearly defined in most people’s minds; it stands to reason that the law should define rape according to what it actually is. So the law defines rape. And then it defines statutory rape, which isn’t rape. Except that it is, since by definition it means “the law calls this rape”. We need a bogus not-rape-but-the-law-says-it-is type of rape in order to charge people for this crime?
Coercion by deception is wrong. Most people would agree with that. How bad it is, and just how much punishment should be carried – well, that should depend on the situation. Rape is probably the wrong thing to call it, but legally it’s the only thing we have.
Re:Don't f* with the IT guy like at restaurant you
on
Child Porn As a Weapon
·
· Score: 1
You mean... since they were both 16... local authorities decided not to get the feds involved... and ruin his life forever?
The generalization, however, is patently false. Strictly speaking, we all agree to have sex with the fictional persons our partners create. And whom we create in our minds.
And kindly do take note of the slippery slope. Where do we draw the line?
The line is at the point where you intentionally tell them something that is false because you know that if you told the truth they would absolutely not have sex with you and by your lying, they might.
You are creating an agreement (mutual consent) which is, in a sense, a legal agreement – as it is your legal defense against claim of rape – and for many people (certainly for Jewish people who are practicing Judaism to any degree at all!), that consent is going to depend on your race (and likely your religious beliefs as well).
Now, I wouldn’t allow that in all cases where the woman was mislead into thinking the man was something he wasn’t, that she was raped. That gets completely ridiculous very quickly, I agree. However, when the guy obviously knew that his real identity would never get him laid (by that particular girl) and intentionally deceives her to get in her pants, yeah. I’d call that rape.
The difference between someone giving their consent to have sex with you, and someone giving their consent to have sex with the person that they thought you were because you deliberately gave a false impression of yourself. I.e. coercion by deception. I.e. rape.
If you hopped into bed with someone in the dark and she asked “_____ is that you?” and you lied – “yes” – and proceeded to fuck, her never the wiser until the morning when she freaked out when she found out you weren’t her boyfriend,... yes, that would be rape.
Claiming to be someone you aren’t in order to get into someone’s pants is rape. They didn’t consent to have sex with YOU, they consented to have sex with the fictional person you created.
Re:Don't f* with the IT guy like at restaurant you
on
Child Porn As a Weapon
·
· Score: 1
The age of consent in RI is 16, and as long as nobody snaps a picture there isn’t any child porn per se. Although most people would consider strip-clubs to be “pornographic”, a live woman stripping is not pornography in the legal sense. Actually I’m surprised that situation hasn’t arisen in more states.
Re:Don't f* with the IT guy like at restaurant you
on
Child Porn As a Weapon
·
· Score: 1
That’s hard to believe. Citation?
Re:jurys most of the time are to dumb to think of
on
Child Porn As a Weapon
·
· Score: 1
That is cookie-based, not IP-based. Just FYI...
Re:Don't f* with the IT guy like at restaurant you
on
Child Porn As a Weapon
·
· Score: 1
Tennessee.
A few others would charge the 18-year-old with a misdemeanor instead of a felony.
And all would consider the 18-year-old to be a pedophile if you follow that statement with “...and has a nude picture of the 17-year-old”.
Re:Don't f* with the IT guy like at restaurant you
on
Child Porn As a Weapon
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Everywhere in the US, the minimum age to model or act in pornographic material is 18. Below that and it is considered child porn, and to make matters more ridiculous there’s no legal distinction between “child” porn where the girl is 17 and child porn where she’s 7.
Only a dozen states set the age of consent at 18, however. Most of them have the age of consent set at 16, and in the rest it is 17 [list]. Additionally, many states have Romeo-and-Juliet-type laws so that if the two people were close in age they aren’t guilty of a crime, or might be guilty of a misdemeanor instead of a felony. However, all of the states in which you can legally sleep with your 16- or 17-year-old girlfriend will still charge you with possession of child pornography if you get caught with a nude picture of her (and possibly charge her with production of it, and – absurd as it sounds – teens have actually been charged with distributing child porn on the mere rationale that they could be hacked and the hacker might gain access to the photos!).
It makes absolutely no rational sense and needs to be fixed, but politicians aren’t about to make child porn laws less strict. That would be political suicide when their enemies use that to claim that they are soft on pedophiles.
Does that mean that you wouldn’t accept modern medical treatment for hypothermia? After all, according to your logic, by so doing you are perpetuating the Nazi’s crimes.
Slashdot Mirror
Am I mistaken in presuming that you meant “corner piece”, not “middle edge piece”, in step 2?
Unzipping a fly with one hand is a bit like tying shoes.
You’re an expert at tying shoes? Now go try tying someone else’s shoes.
making our lives more interesting and enjoyable
It appears that you have never watched me attempt to solve a Rubik’s cube.
The CIA says you’re wrong.
18 years of age (17 years of age with parental consent) for male and female voluntary service; maximum enlistment age 42 (Army), 27 (Air Force), 34 (Navy), 28 (Marines); service obligation 8 years, including 2-5 years active duty (Army), 2 years active (Navy), 4 years active (Air Force, Marines) (2008)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods
In the U.S. and most other countries, if the individual knew the goods were stolen then it is usually prosecuted as a misdemeanor or felony, depending on value of stolen goods. If an individual knows about themselves having possession of stolen goods from another state, then, according to numerous federal laws, it is prosecuted as a federal crime. If the individual didn't know the goods were stolen, then the goods are returned to the owner and the individual is not prosecuted. Though there are often exceptions, because it is not easy to prove or disprove simple knowledge.
It’s molehill. Making a mountain out of a molehill.
It’s short for I’d just assume to forget, and AFAIK it’s pretty much accepted grammar.
You don't sound like an English-as-a-foreign-language speaker, but benefit of the doubt: "I'd just as soon forget".
I disagree. To “assume” something (as it is used there) is to become it or wear it, and that is an appropriate use.
"You're making a mountain out of a mohill."
What’s a mohill?
No; the more computers act like magical black boxes, the easier it becomes using them. It becomes harder to fix them, if you don’t understand how the black box works.
Ideally I want to understand it. But for day-to-day use, I’d just assume forget, in a practical sense, that I know about it, and treat it like a magical black box. As long as it does what I want and expect, I’m satisfied. If it doesn’t, or if my expectations change, I have the knowledge to figure out what’s wrong or find new software to do the new thing that I’m wanting it to do, but in a static situation it should be easy to use without needing to think about all of that.
Yesterday I had to take a screwdriver to a server because the incantation I typed at the command line wasn’t working the way it should have. I’d have much preferred to not need to get my hands dirty, so to speak.
No; exactly the opposite... “ideally the update could be applied in the background”? About freaking time someone figured that out.
If they can find a way to do it without opening security holes, I’m all for it. Hell... there’s nothing dumber, IMHO, than restarting my browser just to install the update that it downloaded.
Make it optional. You want to vet each update? Fine. You want to turn it on and forget about it? Also fine. We have auto bill-pay so we don’t even have to think about it and we won’t get late fees; we have auto-update on our antivirus so we don’t even have to think about it and we hopefully don’t catch the latest greatest virus because our definitions were a day or two old; why do we have to decide how often we restart our browser (or OS) based on its update releases?
I will freely admit that I don’t like the fact that the only thing we have to charge him with is rape. But then, the only we have to charge with for consensual sex with a 15-year-old is statutory rape: statutory (the-law-says-it’s) rape. Rape is pretty clearly defined in most people’s minds; it stands to reason that the law should define rape according to what it actually is. So the law defines rape. And then it defines statutory rape, which isn’t rape. Except that it is, since by definition it means “the law calls this rape”. We need a bogus not-rape-but-the-law-says-it-is type of rape in order to charge people for this crime?
Coercion by deception is wrong. Most people would agree with that. How bad it is, and just how much punishment should be carried – well, that should depend on the situation. Rape is probably the wrong thing to call it, but legally it’s the only thing we have.
You mean... since they were both 16... local authorities decided not to get the feds involved... and ruin his life forever?
+1 outbreakofcommonsense
The generalization, however, is patently false. Strictly speaking, we all agree to have sex with the fictional persons our partners create. And whom we create in our minds.
And kindly do take note of the slippery slope. Where do we draw the line?
The line is at the point where you intentionally tell them something that is false because you know that if you told the truth they would absolutely not have sex with you and by your lying, they might.
You are creating an agreement (mutual consent) which is, in a sense, a legal agreement – as it is your legal defense against claim of rape – and for many people (certainly for Jewish people who are practicing Judaism to any degree at all!), that consent is going to depend on your race (and likely your religious beliefs as well).
Now, I wouldn’t allow that in all cases where the woman was mislead into thinking the man was something he wasn’t, that she was raped. That gets completely ridiculous very quickly, I agree. However, when the guy obviously knew that his real identity would never get him laid (by that particular girl) and intentionally deceives her to get in her pants, yeah. I’d call that rape.
The difference between someone giving their consent to have sex with you, and someone giving their consent to have sex with the person that they thought you were because you deliberately gave a false impression of yourself. I.e. coercion by deception. I.e. rape.
If you hopped into bed with someone in the dark and she asked “_____ is that you?” and you lied – “yes” – and proceeded to fuck, her never the wiser until the morning when she freaked out when she found out you weren’t her boyfriend, ... yes, that would be rape.
Claiming to be someone you aren’t in order to get into someone’s pants is rape. They didn’t consent to have sex with YOU, they consented to have sex with the fictional person you created.
The age of consent in RI is 16, and as long as nobody snaps a picture there isn’t any child porn per se. Although most people would consider strip-clubs to be “pornographic”, a live woman stripping is not pornography in the legal sense. Actually I’m surprised that situation hasn’t arisen in more states.
That’s hard to believe. Citation?
That is cookie-based, not IP-based. Just FYI...
Tennessee.
A few others would charge the 18-year-old with a misdemeanor instead of a felony.
And all would consider the 18-year-old to be a pedophile if you follow that statement with “...and has a nude picture of the 17-year-old”.
Everywhere in the US, the minimum age to model or act in pornographic material is 18. Below that and it is considered child porn, and to make matters more ridiculous there’s no legal distinction between “child” porn where the girl is 17 and child porn where she’s 7.
Only a dozen states set the age of consent at 18, however. Most of them have the age of consent set at 16, and in the rest it is 17 [list]. Additionally, many states have Romeo-and-Juliet-type laws so that if the two people were close in age they aren’t guilty of a crime, or might be guilty of a misdemeanor instead of a felony. However, all of the states in which you can legally sleep with your 16- or 17-year-old girlfriend will still charge you with possession of child pornography if you get caught with a nude picture of her (and possibly charge her with production of it, and – absurd as it sounds – teens have actually been charged with distributing child porn on the mere rationale that they could be hacked and the hacker might gain access to the photos!).
It makes absolutely no rational sense and needs to be fixed, but politicians aren’t about to make child porn laws less strict. That would be political suicide when their enemies use that to claim that they are soft on pedophiles.
He didn’t just “forget” to tell her that he was Palestinian. He claimed to be Jewish.
What’s misleading about “More Than 10% of Mozilla Bug Finders Refuse Cash”?
And modern knowledge of how people freeze to death is very much dependent on Nazis who actually froze people to death and wrote about it.
Does that mean that you wouldn’t accept modern medical treatment for hypothermia? After all, according to your logic, by so doing you are perpetuating the Nazi’s crimes.
It varies by state.
Publicity !== good publicity.