It's an urban myth that the split is 48/52. From Snopes:
According to that same United Nations document, the world population in the year 2000 consisted of 3,051,099,000 men and 3,005,616,000 women, which (with a little rounding) breaks down to 50 men and 50 women in a population of 100.
It's good they modded you funny because it is incredibly funny that snopes did that level of rounding. They have to be joking. As a poster above said the CIA would beg to differ with you (and the number above would likewise indicate a slight disparity in population which is lost when you disregard all proper mathematics and forget grade-school math concepts like significant digits).
And often that is horribly inefficient. Unclear instructions left for you in the morning (your time) may have to wait until the next day to be clarified. Unless it is standard practice to drag people out of bed at all hours of the night.
Oh no you don't get off that lucky. Because the unclear instructions contain an unclear deadline that is hours away if that (a time is given without a time zone...) and the wiseass that sent said instructions is asleep on the other side of the world, and is your boss. Best make do with what you can come up with because if you wait until they are up again to ask you will be too late to keep your job. On the bright side you'll have plenty of time to find a new job then.
Anecdotally, I think this illustrates the difference between a good company and a bad company. If Megacorp A promotes those that actually excel at their given position, and Megacorp B promotes based on who you know in the corporate food chain whilst dedicating your life to running the corporate treadmill, guess which Megacorp will come out ahead in the end? Unfortunately, I work at Megacorp B;)
Megacorp A becomes infested with wastrel bastards masquerading as leaders (managers) who bring in the policies of Megacorp B. They might even be nice enough to couch some of in in terms of employing new industry standards or following a leader in the market. In any case those who have gained their position through subterfuge, sinecure, and sycophancy abhor the rise of those who have real merit. They protect themselves by promoting people like themselves and keeping the rest down. Because of this they tend to take over once they have a foothold, like cockroaches or mice. Hail the PHB overlords!:P
I used to work for a company that regularly and intentionally made schedules too short to complete on time so that they could *require* salaried employees to work evenings and weekends for free.
And I'd like to hear who doesn't. Most companies see salary as a method whereby they no longer have to pay overtime and can therefore manage cost while still requireing overtime. That's essentially what a salary is. You've agreed that whatever is required to do your job is worth $X/year rather than $X/hour. Though these days it's no better on the hourly side. More and more companies seem to find excuses for only "budgeting" for 40 hours per week while finding various ways to require more than that, complete with plausible deniability since they'll say when asked "oh of course we would never require you to work hours for which you are not paid."
So feel lucky, salariman at least you got what you agreed to.
You can't actually expect me to read and respond to all of this, no? I am not saying this in a mean way, but rather a practical one. I wish I had the time to discuss the issues with you, but you've written a book here!
Well it's a complex issue. Someone should write a book about it; I suspect they already have.
But every time someone announces a plan to migrate to FOSS Microsoft is forced to give them a bigger discount. Someday soon a Microsoft salesperson will tell you, "Hey, why would you install OOo for free? We will pay you to install MS-Office!".
No matter what the only way Microsoft will "pay" customers to use Office will be the same way DirectTV gave free satellite systems.* It will always end up that they are charging the customer something in the end (for Windows, etc) while using some accounting/marketing BS to try to convince you that it's all free (or that you are being paid to use it). They are a business. Yes, it will still work; it worked great for everyone else who's pulled this kind of stunt. Car salesmen do it every day.
* DirectTV used to have an ad where they advertised a program claiming to counter the barrier to entry posed by the necessity to buy a satellite system in order to use their service (versus being given the equipment, or rather renting it, as their competitors allow). They explained that the system still cost $600 or whatever it was, but then you would get a "discount" and only have to pay 19.95 per month instead of 39.95 per month for a limited time, "therefore effectively making your system FREE!" It was a marketing ploy to continue to require customers to buy costly equipment and then pay monthly fees in order to use the service (which also means that if the equipment breaks it's on you) yet somehow manage to convince you you're getting a great deal! Free stuff! yeah!
" First off, this ruling only applies to Florida."
True - it may only apply to Florida at present; however, that does not keep it so. The US legal system, however, draws from all states in the formation of the laws with regards to precedence, so there is no stopping a lawyer, in say NY, from citing the case and arguing on it for such a use.
There are actually two things preventing a lawyer from using this as precedent in the case in which you mention. The first is the fact that this is a ruling from a Florida state court on a matter of Florida law. It's not a ruling by a federal court and even if it were it's only on a narrow case of interpretation of a Florida state law. A state court is bound to try cases based on the laws within that state and federal law should it apply. If a trial occurs in New York the court must adhere to ( and base their ruling on ) New York state law, not federal law. As such this ruling is not technically precedent germane to any other area. It does not apply to New York unless New York has a similar law and the federal court makes a ruling on it. Even then being in different circuits of the federal court system would have an effect as well. One federal circuit court might rule in a different way than that of another since they are not bound by precedents set in the other circuit; this is what the people who are upset with the 9th circuit court are on about.
The second thing that would prevent this case's use as precedent in the way you imagine would be the fact that it is a criminal proceeding rather than a civil one. The archiving case would likely be a civil matter and not criminal. There's not necessarily a complete chinese wall between the civil and criminal court systems, but rulings in one area must rarely affect the other since they are really about completely different areas of law and are meant to address completely different sets of problems.
In any case, the only ruling this court made was on the question of whether the Florida law against transmission of data harmful to a minor affected instant messaging. Their ruling was that it did. They did not rule that IMs and emails are the same. They did rule that transmitting salacious IMs to a child was as criminal as transmitting salacious emails to a child under the law in question. That's a pretty narrow ruling and it is in keeping with general practice.
"In any case it won't automatically happen. Someone with a case or controversy pertaining to the archival laws must come before the court and argue that they were meant to apply to IMs. Then they have to win and that ruling has to be upheld. Until that happens or the law is changed there is no reason for fear."
True - it is not automatic completely; that does not mean, however, that companies that here this won't assume it, especially within the boundaries of Florida where it is more likely to be substantiated, in order to keep from it being an issue should someone try to argue it.
It is true that companies have a habit of miscontruing cases like this (the media do not help) and it is likely that some will decide to archive IMs. I do not think that this is solely because of this case, nor is that the fault of the judge. A lot of companies already log and store IMs. That's why the feature is there just like there are software packages that assist in archiving emails in a searchable form. Some of this is a reaction to legal issues (real or perceived) and is part of the due diligence companies do to prevent liability. Some of it is for the purpose of keeping records (I log my conversations so I can look up answers I gave and others gave, and prove certain conversations took place later). In any case it is a good idea. I think the chances are extremely remote that any future rulings based on this particular case will have any bearing on that, though I think it *is* likely that some later case law based on more salient precedent will h
"If we are no longer America we are no longer on the right side of the struggle."
er... what? I suspect that part of the reason that "some people" around the world have become, shall we say, unhappy with America is because of the widely held belief around the world that Americans really think that way!
I suspect (hope!) that you didn't mean it the way it was written, or at least the way I read it. America is not blameless in this respect, and whilst America's aims for their Foreign Policy may have been noble the methods may not have been!
I'm not suggesting that America (or "The West") deserved or deserves the attacks because that would be a ludicrous position, but America should wake up, or wise up, or maybe just grow up. Just because you're the biggest kid in the playground doesn't automatically mean that everything you do is right, and it's generally OK to make mistakes if you are big enough, mature enough even, to admit to them and try to put them right.
I am very glad you brought up this topic. It is important that we address these concerns. I do admit that I was waxing romantic a bit; this romanticism about America and a reference to a higher calling is a common trait here. I realize that our hands are far from clean and our actions have not always been right. Nevertheless I remain adamant in my belief both that there is a special role America is meant to play (or at least can and should play) and that there are some aspects both of our country and its true core philosophy that are so truly good that their propogation is indeed right and necessary for the well-being of the world's peoples. Please don't mistake this for a stance of cultural superiority, however. Remember that I said we should cherish all cultures and allow people to express that culture as they will; in fact this is a core tenet of what I hold to be the true American way.
First I think it's important to understand that there is a difference between American philosophy (and our understanding of ourselves) and the policies and actions of our government. There's an even bigger difference between the beliefs and goals of our populace and that of our "leaders." This is a problem which in itself needs to be addressed. It is by no means confined to our own shores. For instance I have never met a Russian person I did not like; they've always seemed to me to be very friendly honest people who are not very different from us even though there are some distinct cultural (and in some cases religious) differences. Granted I never hang out with Putin or anyone remotely like him (he does seem oddly genial on television, even likeable, but then so did Saddam Hussein and Hitler at times, by design). Their leaders have historically acted in a brutal repressive way that is as repulsive to ordinary Russian sensibilities as it is to ours.
If you group the entire collective that is America into one lump, it is easy to see that lump as a festering evil because of the events of our history. The United States held on to slavery longer than any other Western nation. I am horrified to think of our role in preventing democracy from forming in Hawaii, Cuba, the Philipines, and later many other nations, in some cases resulting in oppression that continues to this day. The shameful treatment of the natives of this land under completely indefensible policies is a blight from which we have never recovered. The support of terrorists, the funding and arming of death squads, the support of brutal dictators are all to be counted among our sins, which are indeed legion. I do find it funny that countries like Germany, Britain, France*, Japan, Russia, et al choose to claim the moral high ground on these issues. It is no excuse for our behaviour (for there can be none), but these countries certainly have engaged in far more reprehensible acts throughout their history than have we, and our darkest sins pail in comparison to their acti
> They even advocate violent overthrow of the government
I don't suppose you've read the Declaration of Independence lately? "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
If the government won't behave properly then it must go. If it won't go peacefully then, by all means, it is the People's right to remove it by force.
People like to point that bit of the Declaration of Independance out. Personally I believe wholeheartedly in every word of it. I believe we need a revival in this country -- where the Law is the Constitution, the Ten Commandments are the Bill of Rights*, and the Gospel is the Declaration of Independance. Nevertheless you would seem to be reading what you want to hear rather than what is written.
It is the right of the people to alter or abolish their government when it no longer serves them, but violence is only justified in cases where this cannot otherwise be done. I find myself agreeing with President Clinton's statement that in this country we can have a revolution every two years. He should know since he was subject to one in 1994. So whereas I agree with your statement that "If the government won't behave properly then it must go. If it won't go peacefully then, by all means, it is the People's right to remove it by force." I would submit that we are not yet at a stage where force is necessary. We should not advocate violence unless all peaceable means have been exhausted. After all, this is what the Founding Fathers did even in the case of King George. They attempted treaty and compromise. They attempted to use the system to submit and redress their grievances. When that failed and it was clear that there was no peaceful solution to be had due to an inability to compromise, they then engaged in violent revolution which culminated in a bloody civil war that tore the country apart before it could be put back together again.
I believe that people who are currently dissatisfied with the process are not using it properly in the first place. The system is broken, we have bad representatives, and the elections are a mess in many many ways. But there is a process to fixing these things that we must at least attempt to follow. People seem not to like processes; they want instant answers and results. But the purpose of process and teh rule of law is to maintain order in society that it might not descend into barbarism. Consider too that many revolutions throw the baby out with the bathwater and pay for it later.
There are two important things to remember about revolutions. The first is that a proper revolution must be maintained in perpetuity. The revolution does not end when the previous order is overthrown; it must create and maintain a new order in keeping with its revolutionary goals. When it ceases this process it begins the process of stagnation and we encounter among other things the phenomenon some describe as "the difference between a revolutionary/liberal and a reactionary/conservative is 20 years' time." Because the revolution fails to maintain its freshness it no longer has the same flavour. As it becomes more interested in perpetuating power than serving the people (the stated purpose of all popular uprisings) it becomes the new Establishment and begins repression anew. This directly relates to my second point about revolutions, that historically the violent overthrow of tyranny leads to a greater tyranny perpetuated by the new revolutionary government. This happened in the Soviet Union, Cuba, France, and it very nearly happened here, too. We got lucky and had the right people in the right place at the right time to put the kibosh on it. Even so we have to remain ever vigilant for the spirit o
"If we lose our freedom, our openness, our ability to accept and assimilate immigrants, we will cease to be the country that we once were, and never become what we were meant to be."
Some of the ability to accept and assimilate immigrants is not dependent on "us" (as you say), but rather the immigrants. But part of being a free country is allowing people not assimilate if they choose not to assimilate, which, of course, raises the potential for a scenario where there is no longer an "us", but rather many "us"s -- a nation that is no longer the nation it once was and a nation lacking the unity to become what it was meant to be. So the truth is that we're screwed whichever way the pedulum swings; the key is to take a balanced approach, which is sorely lacking from these types of discussions.
I think you're basically right here but this does hinge on the definition of assimilation. To my mind there are two halves to the process, as you seem to be pointing out here: we have to accept them and they have to accept us. But therein lies the crux both of the problem and the solution. It's actually a solution we seem to be losing sight of in recent discussions about immigration.
In some countries immigrants are expected to completely assimilate into the culture. It's my understanding that this is the case in the Netherlands. Before you even get a green card there you must become fluent in Dutch and learn the culture so that ultimately you behave in all ways like a "normal" dutch person; you completely blend in.
That's not the model our country was founded on specifically because of our country's special origin and the philosophies which guided its infancy. In a European country you can reasonably claim that there have been certain constants for at least a thousand years or more, and that a unique and relatively homogenous culture has existed (although it has evolved) for centuries. That's not the case in the US because this was a land to which people migrated from all over the world. Some came earlier than others (Native Americans are the most extreme case here), but ultimately everyone here is from somewhere else, with very different and in some cases drastically different culture. Over time there has been a blending of those cultures and languages just as there has been an intermarriage in a literal sincde of disparate peoples, and though there have been some rough spots the ultimate end from a legal standpoint and to a certain extent from a cultural standpoint is that that is OK. From a legal point of view the government in the US is not supposed to dictate culture (yes I know people try; humans always do) just as it is not to dictate religion. We have laws and everyone is expected to obey them. If you don't break the law, there is no basis to give you trouble over "not assimilating," in a real sense assimilation only requires obedience to the law.
In the US it's not really accurate to say there is a homogenous culture. There are certain memes, mores, etc that end up being relatively universal by virtue of their ubiquity in media and the state education system, but the American ideal of cherishing the individual and allowing difference from the "norm," for some even to the point of defiance of the very idea that there is a "norm," means that everyone is different. People just happen to notice more when the person who is different speaks a different language, obviously has a religion other than the one professed by the majority, or looks different than the majority (who seem mostly to have European backgrounds as a major component of their genetic makeup). The fact that this happens is not specifically an American problem, although it is a problem in our society, it is a component of human nature. It's actually a credit to our culture that we have a current that runs from the very founding of this nation feeding the idea that treating people differently simply because they have a cultural, ethnic, or ethical difference that does not directly imp
As it was said in Star Trek VI, The Undiscovered Country, "It is better to die standing, than to live on our knees".
That's a good quote. It's too bad so much in Star Trek is borrowed from other sources, sometimes with little attribution, that people are misled as to the origin of it. I remember cringing when I saw the beginning of Kill Bill I where the quote "revenge is a dish best served cold" is claimed as a Klingon proverb. Chekov of TOS would probably have pointed out that it is a Russian proverb, which is how I originally heard it, although it appears that quote is more ubiquitous and therefore its origin somewhat anomalous.
In this case it's one of those quotes that many people have agreed with and repeated, some of them famous. I think that it does echo feelings people have expressed even into antiquity; I know that there are some speeches which both Tacitus and Julius Caesar attribute to Rome's enemies which seem to be in that spirit. Our own Patrick Henry declared "give me liberty or give me death!"
It is a thing that is easier said than done. In a nation born of revolution such a spirit must continually be kept alive, and people do seem often to agree with such statements here. But it is not a thing they have been asked to actually do yet, and therefore not necessarily something they will do. Nevertheless there are enough who will that will merit the saying. I think that Thomas Jefferson was right in believing that it was necessary for people to be ready to die for such beliefs. Not because they must, or even because they will, but because being that serious about liberty and that adamant about keeping it is the only thing that will allow it to be kept alive, and allow it to grow so that ultimately all must fall under its sway. If we are willing to equivocate, to cower, to acquiesce, then tyranny will win and the natural tendency of those in power to seek its increase will continue unchecked in the absence of opposition. If we will not fight to keep our freedom we become unworthy of it in a sense and will certainly lose it. All humans *deserve* freedom and are granted it at birth; they only lose what they allow to be taken away, but when they do it is not so easily regained.
In any case, bravo on that sentiment. It was given with the best of intentions, and I fully agree with it.
I'm inclined to disagree with Newt on this and at the same time I want to do everything possible to get the barbaric bastards who keep killing innocent people. It's tough and it's only going to get tougher. The world is about to get really scary, I'm afraid.
Of course we want to stop the barbarians from taking over. After all even though Tacitus' "let them hate us so long as they fear us" has a terrifying echo in today's politics, but then look what happened to Rome in its quest to stop the barbari and what happened to the world when the barbarians won. Neither prospect is something we want for our future.
Personally I see a direct correlation in the methods used to deal with extreme violent racist groups in the US (like the Klan, the American Nazis, etc and their descendants)and the means to destroy Al Qaeda and their ilk without destroying the very thing we are fighting for. Even Bush claims that Al Qaeda hates freedom and that our freedom needs to be defended, and to a certain extent he is correct on that although he's clearly not properly defending freedom. If we lose our freedom, our openness, our ability to accept and assimilate immigrants, we will cease to be the country that we once were, and never become what we were meant to be. If we are no longer America we are no longer on the right side of the struggle. If we are no longer America the terrorists win because their goal in this war is to destroy what we are and replace it with an autocracy, preferably a theocracy, and to manipulate us with their terrorist acts.
In this country there are a lot of groups preaching hate and violence, just like Al Qaeda. They even advocate violent overthrow of the government, which is often the limit set for acts of expression becoming criminal acts. In many other countries, Germany for instance, the mere presence of these groups and what they say would be illegal. But in our country it is different. Our country was founded on Enlightenment philosophy, like the famous saying of Voltaire's* "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This means that some people will express things that are distasteful to us, even evil in our eyes, but the fact they think these things is not itself a crime although some acts they might commit in the context of such beliefs definitely are.
In any case, we have found with other groups that it actually serves society's interest to allow these groups to freely express their opinions. There is the philosophical and educational benefit that these viewpoints are then out in the open and therefore can be openly rebutted, and that perhaps those individuals might change their minds with the right kind of rebuttal (whereas if they hid their ignorance and their "shameful" beliefs no one would be able to show them why they are wrong). But more than that, from a law enforcement standpoint if people say what they believe then we know who they are and can watch what they do. When people believe in violence and say so they may be more closely observed so the actual acts of violence might be thwarted. Their groups can be infiltrated more easily when they are more open about what they do, and this is how we reduced significantly the impact of our own homegrown terrorists.
I hate to resort to analogues from movies, but there is a scene in the original "Planet of the Apes" where a kind of reversal of the above takes place. The "subversive" chimpanzees are espousing "heretical" views and Dr. Zaius says "let them talk" in response to the members of the council that want to force the chimpanzees to be silent. In that case there was no freedom of speech but even then the benefit of allowing people who you want to quash to speak was recognized, if only from the standpoint of giving them enough rope to hang themselves. In our case the only heresy we should legitimately wish to quash is that of intolerance and violence. Even so by allowing these groups to speak freely everyone gets to know who they are and
I don't seem to understand the way the law works in the USA. If I was to go online and pretend to be a slutty and 'ready for a root' 13yo girl(you could make my screen name something like 'RootRat94') am I committing a crime? If someone was to send me a lewd picture(R or X rated) because I am acting like I want a photograph of a penis then who is in the wrong? Are the penalties stiffer based on flaccidity? I believe that rock spider behaviour is abhorrent but I have very serious problems with this being acceptable police behaviour.
Apparently impersonating a minor is not a crime in the US and there are people actively impersonating children, terrorists, etc for the purpose of catching criminals. There are laws against entrapment in the US but there are very specific legal definitions that have gradually been eroded to the point that they are virtually meaningless. As far as that goes it should probably be addressed, but that's what it is.
In your scenario technically the person who sent you a picture of a penis committed a crime because they thought you were a child. It is a very fine line. Obviously we aren't supposed to have thoughtcrime (yet) in the USA but there are some things that ride the edge. Here they've made a specific law that errs on the side of protecting children from sexual predators that does rely on the defendants belief and intent.
As to whether they are to be prosecuted that depends on a lot of things. It's less likely when you are the one doing the fishing though it is possible if you were to log the conversation and submit it to the police along with some identifying bits of information the person might be investigated and perhaps ultimately charged. The standard for evidence is still pretty steep though apparently there are cases where pretty tenuous cases with little or no evidence make it through the courts.
As for your marijuana story that is pretty interesting. I think that the undercover officer's actions are probably our fault. You see long ago (basically some time in the 1960s) when both our countries (as well as quite a few others) were experiencing a blossoming, as it were, of interest in this particular plant, some people got the idea of giving the stuff away rather than selling it. It's not a big stretch especially given the culture. In some cases it was not illegal to possess this but selling was illegal. In any case giving for free was eventually ruled the same as selling in the courts. The argument was that just because the price was $0 it did not mean a sale had not occurred. I am glad the magistrate let you off, as I think this was the proper response. But we have, as you have noted, been spreading this infection to other countries and our interpretation has been used as well in other places (free/giving == selling).
I do think that the drug laws are out of whack and it's sad that things have come to such a pass. There have been some serious strong-arm tactics taken on the side of the prohibitionists and much of it is of nebulous legality in and of itself. I do think there are agendas on all sides, and people do have much to gain either way except that those who stand to gain from the status quo are also currently in power (as we say here "they're running shit." ) It's especially annoying that countries that have more liberal drug laws have been strongarmed into changing them just as states within the US were. For you the threat is a reduction of trade or the imposition of tariffs, for our states it is often (and I do think this needs to be challenged as illegal) the threat of withholding funds for services the federal government pays for such as maintenance of the interstate highway system. Recently the Czech Republic was forced to enact anti drug laws for similar reasons; I was proud of their president when I heard he had pardoned the first offender who had been caught giving out a very small amount and charged with distribution.
I read your post and thought, "this guy has it mostly right" (getting unions in the 20s and 30s required much bloodshed so I'd correct your 1950-70s with 1920-30s and 1950-70s). I thought for a minute, "Now that the average person has realized how screwed up the US is, changes will happen".
Then I realized I was reading/. and the rants of a crazy programmer mean nothing. Maybe if linux had taken the profitable world by storm...
You are absolutely right about the 20s, etc. These things are somewhat cyclical and have been for a long period of history. It does bear some study but it's hard to quantify what is in essence qualitative data.
You are also right about the ranting. All the ranting on slashdot or youtube or whatever in the world will change nothing if words are never translated to action. I have thought for a long time that we need a real grassroots effort to change the direction of government and hack the system. The problem is keeping the momentum of such revolutionary change and avoiding the seemingly inevitable slide from revolutionary to reactionary which seems to have happened in most revolutions (I'm thinking here of our own, where the second president we had was so unable to take criticism he undertook the creation of unconstitutional law, unlawful arrest and brutal suppression of the dissenters. Or if you like the example of the revolutions of France, Cuba, and Russia which, whether you agree with their particular politics or not clearly quickly devolved into an endless struggle against counterrevolution that destroyed the stated intent of the original.
Here what we need are people who are willing to turn back the tide and stand up for human rights, who believe in what Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independance. Those people have not only to get out and vote, which for now is unlikely to effect major change although it needs doing in any case, but they must themselves stand for office and vote for one another. Whether it be under the guise of a takeover of one of the established parties, formation of a new party, a bunch of independants, or a simple coalition of like minded individuals dedicated to a common cause regardless of party affiliation, it needs doing. Nothing less will achieve the goal of re-establishing our original purpose, our rights, and the primacy of our nation as the foremost proponent of the advancement of human rights.
In the case of the police problem a simple solution has been proposed in just about every jurisdiction in the country. That is to have a citizen's council who can hear grievances and investigate alleged wrongdoing on the part of the police department. Internal affairs departments exist within police departments, but they are often suspect in their activities especially in cases like this. After all it is the foxes guarding the henhouse. There is a reason for the policy of appointing an independant council to investigate government wrongdoing. It removes the colour of corruption that would taint even the most perfect investigation of this sort conducted by the alleged perpetrators. Unfortunately what is supposed to be a proper check against the potential depredations of the President of the United States is a bridge too far for the police. In every case of which I am aware the public outcry for an independant civilian board to oversee the police department has been summarily denied. There's no vote, just the answer of no, incredibly coming from the police department itself.
While I am sure that this could be effected were the public officials we elect willing to stand up for it or were a referendum allowed, I think it is important to address the officers' concerns. To my mind they have much to gain from the implementation of such a policy. Acting more openly and submitting their actions to scrutiny, as well as actually dealing with officers who themselves commit crimes rather than simply moving them from one department to another (a
Some of the founders didn't want a bill of rights. They were completely fine with the rights idea, they were just afraid that people would decide it was an exhaustive list or get the idea that the government grants rights.
Yeah, funny how that works. I guess the people that did not want the rigts enumerated were right after all. But then given the fact that the people we have in power think they give us rights and are trying to teach generation after generation that they only get rights because the government lets them have them (there's a reason our public education system is in the toilet) it's probably good that we have something on paper that is supposed to remind them. Unfortunately they've been using it as toilet paper and making us clean up the mess. They also blatantly ignore the specifics like "make no law" and "abridge"...
As for jailing bloggers, it already happened even before the patriot act and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. It did not start with Bush, but he sure did fire a warning shot when he very nearly outlawed web sites that dared to criticized him even before he was elected. It was only public outcry that stayed his hand, but even then he has steadily worked on laying the foundation of law that would allow him to put a stop to the voices of dissent he hates so much. For now only people whose web sites are highly critical of the government to the point that the government can claim that they are advocating an illegal point of view are actually punished, but many sites just get shut down because all they have to do is scare your ISP into dropping you. That's been going on at least since Clinton was president.
The only thing that keeps the status quo is people's fear to stick out and therefore risk being singled out. Most people just don't want to make trouble and want to be left alone. But in any police state when you allow things to degenerate enough by standing by eventually you will get tagged, too. Then it's your turn on the gulag archipelego.
" He was tazered for not leaving when asked and after he became combative and disruptive."
Not leaving when asked does not justify the use of potentially lethal torture. (Yes, stunguns are potentially lethal, and the accurate word for the deliberate infliction of agony to cause a person who is not an immediate threat to anyone's safety to comply with your demands is "torture".)
This kind of excess is unjustifiable in any case. Police officers are granted tools such as tasers and nightsticks for the specific purpose of subduing people in a non-lethal manner when they present a physical danger to the officers or others and cannot be otherwise restrained. Therefore the only appropriate use of these tools is in cases where not using them would be more dangerous to the officers (and thus potentially to the suspects) not to use them. And only the minimum force required to end the attack or cause the suspect to submit to restraint is allowable.
The manufacturer of the TASER has specifically stated that these devices can be deadly if humans are subjected to them more than once in a single episode. Every police organization in the country has training that includes that warning and processes that are supposed to uphold the above. Yet these officers clearly exceeded all reason, the manufacturer's specifications, and any semblance of necessity. If the person in question was subject to arrest and resisted violently some form of subdual may be warranted. But overkill like this is never warranted especially noting the dangers. In any case it is never allowable to attack a bound prisoner as happened here.
Watch the video. The person being tasered was not loud at all until he was being shocked, which did cause him to scream. There was no reason to arrest him in the first place. He was a student in the University library studying and minding his own business. He did not quickly present his id card when asked by the officers and then did not leave fast enough for them. He said repeatedly that he wanted to leave, but the officers were blocking his way and shocking him to make him move even after they had him handcuffed. There is no justification for that kind of behaviour. This person was not committing any crime (the closest you can come is that once someone is asked to leave they are trespassing if they stay, but even then they must be given a reasonable chance to go) and did not present a danger to anyone. He was clearly tortured without reason, in fact the police overtly say that they are using the taser as a punishment (which is not its purpose). I really don't see how these police could even think that what they were doing was right and how they were inured to the pleas of their victim and the other students to stop torturing an innocent man. The person who said it may have been justified to threaten the crowd with tasering may actually be right in that it is amazing that the crowd did not fall violently upon the officers. Nevertheless this should have been a signal to them. It's their duty to maintain peace and order, to dispell unrest and defuse out of control situations. Clearly they failed in their duty here because they continuously acted as the sole agitators and escalators in what started out as a nonevent and nearly became a bloodbath.
All I can say is don't forget your fucking library card. One does learn to cow before the police and try never to do anything to make them the least bit nervous even when they are clearly wrong and unlawfully arresting you. It just does not pay because they have the means to make you very sorry that you annoyed them and if they feel like it they will use them. Then they will get away with it because even when they kill you they do not get punished. It's sad that even the law abiding citizen must fear the police and that we must treat them as an abused wife does her husband (it's a similar relationship the citizenry have with our police force) but that's how it is and will remain unti
Well if you are going to broadly define it, as the judge has in this case and how the law has outlined it, many things fall into that category.
"1. messages distributed by electronic means from one computer user to one or more recipients via a network 2. the system of sending messages by such electronic means"
You could call a Sidekick a computer, since it does alot more than just make phone calls, and the cellphone provider attaches it to a network..so under this definition, a text message from someone on a phone would count as 'email' and would fall under this law's jurisdiction.
Zooming out a little bit, any phone-to-phone, pc-to-phone or phone-to-pc text or IM message would match up with this law. Zooming out further and something as ancient as a teletype/telegraph transmission, unlikely though it might be, would also apply. It is electronic, it is sent from an electronic device over a network to another device, with the intent of delivering information to an end user.
An earlier poster quoted "'Transmit' means to send to a specific individual known by the defendant to be a minor via electronic mail." I have to take issue with the wording here, because it's disputable whether or not one could really 'know' someone online is a minor prior to meeting them, just like most people don't know the person on the other end of the heated cybersex chat is a bloated over-50 transvestite bus driver. There is a certain amount of assumption here but I wouldn't call it 'knowing' by any stretch. But, for the purpose of keeping molesters locked up (which is especially prevalent in Florida for some reason), I suppose the wording is 'good enough'.
Actually in the case of "knowing" someone is a minor, the law probably should say "known or believed to be" as it does when talking about the knowledge that the data being transmitted is harmful. Nevertheless in this case it seems to ahve been applied in that way. The "minor" that receoived the communication was an adult police officer and the sender believed that the police officer was a 13 year old girl. The intent of the act was the deciding factor here. I think you are right to worry about whether a person knows that the person on the other end is a minor. That could present a problem.
In fact it already is because in many cases statutory rape and other laws against sexual acts with minors put the onus on the adult to know whether the other person is a minor or not. Even if they believe that the person they are committing the act with is of age they are still guilty. That higher standard probably derives from the fact that the physical act is much more hazardous, it should be easier to tell that the person involved is a minor in such cases, and again the adult has the greater responsibility in all interactions with a minor. Nevertheless it does open the possibility that in interactions like this a person could potentially end up in trouble sending the wrong thing to someone who turns out to be a minor. It does go back to the usual precautions, though that you should know someone as well as you can before you go doing something like this. However it is true that in this case the defendant did believe that the person he was sending these messages and images to was a minor and it is hoped that in other cases the situation and intent will be applied to deciding the case just as it was here.
But that's not what I started to reply to you for. I noticed that you and several others seem to be worried about a widening of the scope of the law in question. It does seem to me to be a case of myopia in that you're missing the big picture. No matter how wide this law's reach were to become (smoke signals, sign language, long-distance yodelling) it is the message that matters. The only thing that is criminalized here is the intentional transmission of obscene content to a minor. That is, basically the fact that a person might engage in lewd talk with a minor,
And really, what made "email" worthy of its own add-on penalties, beyond the existing penalties for solicitation of a minor?
I'm not sure but it looks like this guy was trying to get away altogether with the fact he solicited a minor on the argument that soliciting a minor over instant messaging was not illegal. That's a bit scary. As for "added penalties," given what this guy was up to I think 5 years probation is an awfully light penalty. Maybe we need more, or someone needs to get some balls and start applying the law properly.
What about faxes? A fax is for transmitting printed matter or images by electronic means. Does this mean that any letter that is scanned into an electronic format is now considered an e-mail upon transmission? I think that defining a term "ambiguous" (email in this case) that has a specific meaning to justify a specific outcome is a very slippery slope that the justices should avoid.
The fax does not become email just as the IM did not become email. However the act would probably be illegal if the data you transmitted was obscene and you deliberately sent it to a minor (for instance if you sent a fax to a 13 year old girl asking for sex).
The whole point of the ruling is that it's not the specific method of transmission that is criminal here. It is the transmission of lewd material to a minor that is illegal. Having phone sex with a 13 year old girl over tin cans and a string is just as wrong and very probably illegal.
Actually, the stronger issue is that companies are required to maintain e-mail records for X number of years - in case of court cases, audits, etc. This ruling now makes companies accountable for maintaining IM traffic (and possibly other similar data) as well. THAT will be of grave issue.
That's a misunderstanding both of how the system works and of the ruling itself. First off, this ruling only applies to Florida. Second the only thing that was decided here was that the anti-solicitation law passed in Florida applies to email and the defendant was granted due process. This has no bearing on the laws regarding archival (although I wonder why you call it such an issue since all corporate IM servers support logging and archival and implementing that on other protocols is routine and trivial).
It would be a real stretch to apply this case as precedent for the purpose of proving that the laws regarding archiving electronic communication apply to IMs because most of the tests that generated this ruling would not apply to such a case. To wit, whereas it is clear that the defendant should reasonably have understood that propositioning a 13 year old girl over the internet was illegal, it is far less clear that a corporation should think that the lack of archival of chat traffic runs afoul of the law. (Though, again, it seems just to be common sense that they should do it without a law. If a form of communication is important to your business you should keep records. That's why I log all of my chat conversations and keep all of my emails. )
Likewise this ruling depended on the interpretation of the intent of the legislature in passing the law. I don't think this case is useful precedent in proving that laws requiring businesses to archive communication apply to IM traffic. Some of the precedent cited here might, but the case doesn't apply to that law in particular. In any case it won't automatically happen. Someone with a case or controversy pertaining to the archival laws must come before the court and argue that they were meant to apply to IMs. Then they have to win and that ruling has to be upheld. Until that happens or the law is changed there is no reason for fear. IANAL.
In this case, as well as the one you stated, Expost Facto certainly applies. Expost facto being latin for "After the fact". In the United States, you cannot arrest someone for breaking a law, then change the law to include them.
You can now! Well, you shouldn't be able to, but it was done. Nevertheless ex post facto has zero to do with this case or the parent's suggestions.
If they have even halfway decent attornies, they should realise that their convictions are null-in-void. The situation you named follows the same standard. Cant arrest someone for something that isn't yet in the books, or go back and arrest them after the fact, as it was legal then.
First off, it's "null and void." There's a reason we choose the words we use in phrases. It's not to remind people of the sound they heard on the TV the last time some sitcom character used it. In any case, what are you talking about? The fact someone was convicted illegally does not automagically void their conviction. The conviction stands unless a defendant's appeal succeeds in proving to a court that the conviction was unlawful. None of this has to do with ex post facto. Ex post facto is a limitation on the powers of the legislative branch. It means "after the fact" as you said, and it does mean that you cannot apply a law passed in the future to actions taken in the past, but that is not what was done here. The law in question was on the books when the defendant committed his crime. No new law was passed. The judges interpreted the law as one intended to outlaw the actions taken by the defendant. If you have issue with their ruling that is one thing (I happen not to since the ruling reads as being on the up and up), but ex post facto this is most certainly not.
And to be clear, IANAL
You have made that abundantly clear. No one should mistake me for a lawyer either.
Or do we do what's right with regards to (legal) policy?
I would side with the judge and say this law should include IM's and any electronic communication, VoIP, blogs (MySpace), etc. However, this does leave open the attack for a different case, where it's not as obvious or the crime is not as heinous, to be exploited in the same regards... think RIAA.
I think this is a situation where one has to weight the seriousness of the crime against the importance of the law.
This makes me think of the case in Wisconsin where 2 guys saw a picture in the newspaper of a 21 year old girl who recently died in an accident. They thought she looked pretty so they went and bought some condoms and dug up her grave. They where caught at the cemetery, before anything could come about, but since there were no laws on the book, they couldn't stick any charges to these guys.
This is a situation, again, where the law should be capable of proper punishment of these people and not just some petty crime because 'there was nothing on the books specifically'. In a perfect world, we would all agree and we wouldn't need written laws because we could just file things case by case, but that's just not realistic.
Cheers, Fozzy
First off, IANAL and YANAL. However, the submitter is completely out of his tree here. This is not a question of justice vs the rule of law. If only for the simple fact that the defendant was granted due process and the ruling in question was made and upheld by the applicable courts, we're not talking about a breach of the rule of law. But it does not stop there. This is a perfectly normal ruling on an established matter of law in keeping with similar rulings by other courts on other laws. The judges cited (and were guided by) precedent in their ruling just as they should. They relied on precedent both to determine whether it was proper to grant the dismissal of the charge based on the vagueness of the law and to determine whether the law was in fact vague. They followed the law to the letter in this case as evidenced by their ruling.
It is not uncommon at all for courts to rule based on the perceived intent of the lawmakers writing a law just as they rule on the perceived intent of the parties involved in an action. It's also not uncommon for defense lawyers to argue for some narrow interpretation of law that would result in the charges against his client being dismissed. That may be a surprise to slashdot, but this happens all the time, and not just in Florida. It certainly does not only happen with laws involving technology. Sometimes the courts rule that the law should cover the offence in question because certain legal tests are met, which basically boils down to the question of whether the action in question was in fact the action lawmakers were intending to criminalize/prevent when they passed the law. Sometimes judges rule for a narrower interpretation than the prosecution wants, because the law has been stretched too far and the aforementioned legal tests are not met.
In other words it is a judgment call. They are judges. This is what they do. It is their function in our system of adversarial due process just as it is the function of the defense to try to get his client off scot free and of the prosecution to nail him to the wall. But in a properly ordered system none of this happens by fiat. No one is pulling rulings out of their ass. And guess what they did not this time. They cited their sources and explained how their ruling follows the law. Go ahead and read the actual ruling and then come back with a coherent legal argument as to why this is not due process.
To get back to the technical nitpick which brough slashdot into a snit in the first place... Of course it makes sense that the lawmakers who wrote this law were not the most technically savvy people in the world. But
Almost all of the money made by open source has been made by exploiting open source. Yes most of the internet runs on OSS. But how many of the billions if not trillions of dollars has made it back to the pockets of the developers of the big parts like Apache? I would guess not much since even Apache has a 'donations' link on their site.
Apache Software Foundation (apache.org) has a donation link on their site because they are a non-profit corporation. So by definition they don't make money. That does not mean they don't get money and resources; it just means that they use it all on improving the product.
That said, the companies listed (and many others) have indeed contributed to as well as profited from open source software. IBM spends billions every year on Linux alone. And where do you think all that code comes from? the magic code monkeys? People that work for these companies are either paid directly to work on open source software or allowed to do so because of permissive policies that derive directly from the fact that those companies are making money from the profit of their labour.
Meanwhile all of this work is shared and the wheel does not have to be reinvented. IBM benefits from the code contributed by Sun as well as Chucky down the street. And it works the other way too. And all of them are making money... I mean even Chucky gets a job or can do consulting work because he's been working on this stuff all that time. Like when AOL hired all the Mozilla people. Or RMS's consulting, which probably has not made him particularly rich, though he is not exactly starving to death.
There are a lot of ways to make money from open source. Some of the easiest ways involve working with or for companies, but there are others. Still, to focus too much on the aspect of direct monetary gain is to miss the greatest benefits of free software / open source. The best thing about the software is when you actually get to USE the software. Sure, you can contribute code if you want to, and you can customize it for your needs, but ultimately you derive gain from the fact that you can use the software freely, unencumbered by onerous licenses and likely free as in beer as well. That means that whether you need software for your business or for personal use you have easy access to it and you don;t really have to do anything to get it other than go get it.
Maybe your business is making money from free software (lots of people and companies do). Maybe you are doing something else but you use free software to accomplish those ends (way more companies are doing that). Maybe you just use it to learn, or because you feel like it. But no matter what you end up saving time, money, and other resources because you are benefitting from the community, and thus you profit from the use of Open Source / Free Software.
You mean to tell me that it only just now occurred to someone to send an entangled photon through a spool of fiber and see how it affects its twin, which took a direct path?
Also, I thought entanglement couldn't be used to transmit information, as a consequence of Somebody or Another's Law.
Can anyone clarify just what this poorly-written and sensational article is actually saying?
No, this is Slashdot. You want real physicists, and you're probably barking up the wrong tree.
However you may receive several answers. They are statistically likely not to include the right answer to your question, but rather to fall into one of the following categories (in fact you may just get all of these):
1) Someone will pretend they know what they are talking about and give you a very long and detailed answer. Unfortunately it will be horribly wrong, but only people with the proper background will realize it (ie no one here).:D
2) Someone will post a completely offtopic ad hominem attack on you for no particular reason (brain hurt! must strike thing that make brain hurt!) for bonus it will probably have something to do with your sexual proclivities and/or your mother.
3) Someone will post a completely unrelated troll hoping to get people to actually read it.
4) Someone will post a smart-aleck comment predicting the reasons you will not receive your answer (Hi there!)
Slashdot Mirror
It's an urban myth that the split is 48/52. From Snopes:
According to that same United Nations document, the world population in the year 2000 consisted of 3,051,099,000 men and 3,005,616,000 women, which (with a little rounding) breaks down to 50 men and 50 women in a population of 100.
It's good they modded you funny because it is incredibly funny that snopes did that level of rounding. They have to be joking.
As a poster above said the CIA would beg to differ with you (and the number above would likewise indicate a slight disparity in population which is lost when you disregard all proper mathematics and forget grade-school math concepts like significant digits).
of course we know the CIA is never wrong. Not, for instance, when calculating the location of Weapons of Mass Destruction and Chinese Embassies, etc, etc :D.
And often that is horribly inefficient. Unclear instructions left for you in the morning (your time) may have to wait until the next day to be clarified. Unless it is standard practice to drag people out of bed at all hours of the night.
Oh no you don't get off that lucky. Because the unclear instructions contain an unclear deadline that is hours away if that (a time is given without a time zone...) and the wiseass that sent said instructions is asleep on the other side of the world, and is your boss. Best make do with what you can come up with because if you wait until they are up again to ask you will be too late to keep your job. On the bright side you'll have plenty of time to find a new job then.
Anecdotally, I think this illustrates the difference between a good company and a bad company. If Megacorp A promotes those that actually excel at their given position, and Megacorp B promotes based on who you know in the corporate food chain whilst dedicating your life to running the corporate treadmill, guess which Megacorp will come out ahead in the end? Unfortunately, I work at Megacorp B ;)
Megacorp A becomes infested with wastrel bastards masquerading as leaders (managers) who bring in the policies of Megacorp B. They might even be nice enough to couch some of in in terms of employing new industry standards or following a leader in the market. In any case those who have gained their position through subterfuge, sinecure, and sycophancy abhor the rise of those who have real merit. They protect themselves by promoting people like themselves and keeping the rest down. Because of this they tend to take over once they have a foothold, like cockroaches or mice. Hail the PHB overlords! :P
I used to work for a company that regularly and intentionally made schedules too short to complete on time so that they could *require* salaried employees to work evenings and weekends for free.
And I'd like to hear who doesn't. Most companies see salary as a method whereby they no longer have to pay overtime and can therefore manage cost while still requireing overtime. That's essentially what a salary is. You've agreed that whatever is required to do your job is worth $X/year rather than $X/hour. Though these days it's no better on the hourly side. More and more companies seem to find excuses for only "budgeting" for 40 hours per week while finding various ways to require more than that, complete with plausible deniability since they'll say when asked "oh of course we would never require you to work hours for which you are not paid."
So feel lucky, salariman at least you got what you agreed to.
You can't actually expect me to read and respond to all of this, no? I am not saying this in a mean way, but rather a practical one. I wish I had the time to discuss the issues with you, but you've written a book here!
Well it's a complex issue. Someone should write a book about it; I suspect they already have.
"No matter what Microsoft does, they always win"
But every time someone announces a plan to migrate to FOSS Microsoft is forced to give them a bigger discount. Someday soon a Microsoft salesperson will tell you, "Hey, why would you install OOo for free? We will pay you to install MS-Office!".
No matter what the only way Microsoft will "pay" customers to use Office will be the same way DirectTV gave free satellite systems.* It will always end up that they are charging the customer something in the end (for Windows, etc) while using some accounting/marketing BS to try to convince you that it's all free (or that you are being paid to use it). They are a business. Yes, it will still work; it worked great for everyone else who's pulled this kind of stunt. Car salesmen do it every day.
* DirectTV used to have an ad where they advertised a program claiming to counter the barrier to entry posed by the necessity to buy a satellite system in order to use their service (versus being given the equipment, or rather renting it, as their competitors allow). They explained that the system still cost $600 or whatever it was, but then you would get a "discount" and only have to pay 19.95 per month instead of 39.95 per month for a limited time, "therefore effectively making your system FREE!" It was a marketing ploy to continue to require customers to buy costly equipment and then pay monthly fees in order to use the service (which also means that if the equipment breaks it's on you) yet somehow manage to convince you you're getting a great deal! Free stuff! yeah!
I missed a typo. I said:
If a trial occurs in New York the court must adhere to ( and base their ruling on ) New York state law, not federal law.
I meant:
"If a trial occurs in New York the court must adhere to ( and base their ruling on ) New York state law and federal law, not Florida state law."
That should make more sense.
" First off, this ruling only applies to Florida."
True - it may only apply to Florida at present; however, that does not keep it so. The US legal system, however, draws from all states in the formation of the laws with regards to precedence, so there is no stopping a lawyer, in say NY, from citing the case and arguing on it for such a use.
There are actually two things preventing a lawyer from using this as precedent in the case in which you mention. The first is the fact that this is a ruling from a Florida state court on a matter of Florida law. It's not a ruling by a federal court and even if it were it's only on a narrow case of interpretation of a Florida state law. A state court is bound to try cases based on the laws within that state and federal law should it apply. If a trial occurs in New York the court must adhere to ( and base their ruling on ) New York state law, not federal law. As such this ruling is not technically precedent germane to any other area. It does not apply to New York unless New York has a similar law and the federal court makes a ruling on it. Even then being in different circuits of the federal court system would have an effect as well. One federal circuit court might rule in a different way than that of another since they are not bound by precedents set in the other circuit; this is what the people who are upset with the 9th circuit court are on about.
The second thing that would prevent this case's use as precedent in the way you imagine would be the fact that it is a criminal proceeding rather than a civil one. The archiving case would likely be a civil matter and not criminal. There's not necessarily a complete chinese wall between the civil and criminal court systems, but rulings in one area must rarely affect the other since they are really about completely different areas of law and are meant to address completely different sets of problems.
In any case, the only ruling this court made was on the question of whether the Florida law against transmission of data harmful to a minor affected instant messaging. Their ruling was that it did. They did not rule that IMs and emails are the same. They did rule that transmitting salacious IMs to a child was as criminal as transmitting salacious emails to a child under the law in question. That's a pretty narrow ruling and it is in keeping with general practice.
"In any case it won't automatically happen. Someone with a case or controversy pertaining to the archival laws must come before the court and argue that they were meant to apply to IMs. Then they have to win and that ruling has to be upheld. Until that happens or the law is changed there is no reason for fear."
True - it is not automatic completely; that does not mean, however, that companies that here this won't assume it, especially within the boundaries of Florida where it is more likely to be substantiated, in order to keep from it being an issue should someone try to argue it.
It is true that companies have a habit of miscontruing cases like this (the media do not help) and it is likely that some will decide to archive IMs. I do not think that this is solely because of this case, nor is that the fault of the judge. A lot of companies already log and store IMs. That's why the feature is there just like there are software packages that assist in archiving emails in a searchable form. Some of this is a reaction to legal issues (real or perceived) and is part of the due diligence companies do to prevent liability. Some of it is for the purpose of keeping records (I log my conversations so I can look up answers I gave and others gave, and prove certain conversations took place later). In any case it is a good idea. I think the chances are extremely remote that any future rulings based on this particular case will have any bearing on that, though I think it *is* likely that some later case law based on more salient precedent will h
"If we are no longer America we are no longer on the right side of the struggle."
er ... what? I suspect that part of the reason that "some people" around the world have become, shall we say, unhappy with America is because of the widely held belief around the world that Americans really think that way!
I suspect (hope!) that you didn't mean it the way it was written, or at least the way I read it. America is not blameless in this respect, and whilst America's aims for their Foreign Policy may have been noble the methods may not have been!
I'm not suggesting that America (or "The West") deserved or deserves the attacks because that would be a ludicrous position, but America should wake up, or wise up, or maybe just grow up. Just because you're the biggest kid in the playground doesn't automatically mean that everything you do is right, and it's generally OK to make mistakes if you are big enough, mature enough even, to admit to them and try to put them right.
I am very glad you brought up this topic. It is important that we address these concerns. I do admit that I was waxing romantic a bit; this romanticism about America and a reference to a higher calling is a common trait here. I realize that our hands are far from clean and our actions have not always been right. Nevertheless I remain adamant in my belief both that there is a special role America is meant to play (or at least can and should play) and that there are some aspects both of our country and its true core philosophy that are so truly good that their propogation is indeed right and necessary for the well-being of the world's peoples. Please don't mistake this for a stance of cultural superiority, however. Remember that I said we should cherish all cultures and allow people to express that culture as they will; in fact this is a core tenet of what I hold to be the true American way.
First I think it's important to understand that there is a difference between American philosophy (and our understanding of ourselves) and the policies and actions of our government. There's an even bigger difference between the beliefs and goals of our populace and that of our "leaders." This is a problem which in itself needs to be addressed. It is by no means confined to our own shores. For instance I have never met a Russian person I did not like; they've always seemed to me to be very friendly honest people who are not very different from us even though there are some distinct cultural (and in some cases religious) differences. Granted I never hang out with Putin or anyone remotely like him (he does seem oddly genial on television, even likeable, but then so did Saddam Hussein and Hitler at times, by design). Their leaders have historically acted in a brutal repressive way that is as repulsive to ordinary Russian sensibilities as it is to ours.
If you group the entire collective that is America into one lump, it is easy to see that lump as a festering evil because of the events of our history. The United States held on to slavery longer than any other Western nation. I am horrified to think of our role in preventing democracy from forming in Hawaii, Cuba, the Philipines, and later many other nations, in some cases resulting in oppression that continues to this day. The shameful treatment of the natives of this land under completely indefensible policies is a blight from which we have never recovered. The support of terrorists, the funding and arming of death squads, the support of brutal dictators are all to be counted among our sins, which are indeed legion. I do find it funny that countries like Germany, Britain, France*, Japan, Russia, et al choose to claim the moral high ground on these issues. It is no excuse for our behaviour (for there can be none), but these countries certainly have engaged in far more reprehensible acts throughout their history than have we, and our darkest sins pail in comparison to their acti
> They even advocate violent overthrow of the government
I don't suppose you've read the Declaration of Independence lately? "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
If the government won't behave properly then it must go. If it won't go peacefully then, by all means, it is the People's right to remove it by force.
People like to point that bit of the Declaration of Independance out. Personally I believe wholeheartedly in every word of it. I believe we need a revival in this country -- where the Law is the Constitution, the Ten Commandments are the Bill of Rights*, and the Gospel is the Declaration of Independance. Nevertheless you would seem to be reading what you want to hear rather than what is written.
It is the right of the people to alter or abolish their government when it no longer serves them, but violence is only justified in cases where this cannot otherwise be done. I find myself agreeing with President Clinton's statement that in this country we can have a revolution every two years. He should know since he was subject to one in 1994. So whereas I agree with your statement that "If the government won't behave properly then it must go. If it won't go peacefully then, by all means, it is the People's right to remove it by force." I would submit that we are not yet at a stage where force is necessary. We should not advocate violence unless all peaceable means have been exhausted. After all, this is what the Founding Fathers did even in the case of King George. They attempted treaty and compromise. They attempted to use the system to submit and redress their grievances. When that failed and it was clear that there was no peaceful solution to be had due to an inability to compromise, they then engaged in violent revolution which culminated in a bloody civil war that tore the country apart before it could be put back together again.
I believe that people who are currently dissatisfied with the process are not using it properly in the first place. The system is broken, we have bad representatives, and the elections are a mess in many many ways. But there is a process to fixing these things that we must at least attempt to follow. People seem not to like processes; they want instant answers and results. But the purpose of process and teh rule of law is to maintain order in society that it might not descend into barbarism. Consider too that many revolutions throw the baby out with the bathwater and pay for it later.
There are two important things to remember about revolutions. The first is that a proper revolution must be maintained in perpetuity. The revolution does not end when the previous order is overthrown; it must create and maintain a new order in keeping with its revolutionary goals. When it ceases this process it begins the process of stagnation and we encounter among other things the phenomenon some describe as "the difference between a revolutionary/liberal and a reactionary/conservative is 20 years' time." Because the revolution fails to maintain its freshness it no longer has the same flavour. As it becomes more interested in perpetuating power than serving the people (the stated purpose of all popular uprisings) it becomes the new Establishment and begins repression anew. This directly relates to my second point about revolutions, that historically the violent overthrow of tyranny leads to a greater tyranny perpetuated by the new revolutionary government. This happened in the Soviet Union, Cuba, France, and it very nearly happened here, too. We got lucky and had the right people in the right place at the right time to put the kibosh on it. Even so we have to remain ever vigilant for the spirit o
"If we lose our freedom, our openness, our ability to accept and assimilate immigrants, we will cease to be the country that we once were, and never become what we were meant to be."
Some of the ability to accept and assimilate immigrants is not dependent on "us" (as you say), but rather the immigrants. But part of being a free country is allowing people not assimilate if they choose not to assimilate, which, of course, raises the potential for a scenario where there is no longer an "us", but rather many "us"s -- a nation that is no longer the nation it once was and a nation lacking the unity to become what it was meant to be. So the truth is that we're screwed whichever way the pedulum swings; the key is to take a balanced approach, which is sorely lacking from these types of discussions.
I think you're basically right here but this does hinge on the definition of assimilation. To my mind there are two halves to the process, as you seem to be pointing out here: we have to accept them and they have to accept us. But therein lies the crux both of the problem and the solution. It's actually a solution we seem to be losing sight of in recent discussions about immigration.
In some countries immigrants are expected to completely assimilate into the culture. It's my understanding that this is the case in the Netherlands. Before you even get a green card there you must become fluent in Dutch and learn the culture so that ultimately you behave in all ways like a "normal" dutch person; you completely blend in.
That's not the model our country was founded on specifically because of our country's special origin and the philosophies which guided its infancy. In a European country you can reasonably claim that there have been certain constants for at least a thousand years or more, and that a unique and relatively homogenous culture has existed (although it has evolved) for centuries. That's not the case in the US because this was a land to which people migrated from all over the world. Some came earlier than others (Native Americans are the most extreme case here), but ultimately everyone here is from somewhere else, with very different and in some cases drastically different culture. Over time there has been a blending of those cultures and languages just as there has been an intermarriage in a literal sincde of disparate peoples, and though there have been some rough spots the ultimate end from a legal standpoint and to a certain extent from a cultural standpoint is that that is OK. From a legal point of view the government in the US is not supposed to dictate culture (yes I know people try; humans always do) just as it is not to dictate religion. We have laws and everyone is expected to obey them. If you don't break the law, there is no basis to give you trouble over "not assimilating," in a real sense assimilation only requires obedience to the law.
In the US it's not really accurate to say there is a homogenous culture. There are certain memes, mores, etc that end up being relatively universal by virtue of their ubiquity in media and the state education system, but the American ideal of cherishing the individual and allowing difference from the "norm," for some even to the point of defiance of the very idea that there is a "norm," means that everyone is different. People just happen to notice more when the person who is different speaks a different language, obviously has a religion other than the one professed by the majority, or looks different than the majority (who seem mostly to have European backgrounds as a major component of their genetic makeup). The fact that this happens is not specifically an American problem, although it is a problem in our society, it is a component of human nature. It's actually a credit to our culture that we have a current that runs from the very founding of this nation feeding the idea that treating people differently simply because they have a cultural, ethnic, or ethical difference that does not directly imp
As it was said in Star Trek VI, The Undiscovered Country, "It is better to die standing, than to live on our knees".
That's a good quote. It's too bad so much in Star Trek is borrowed from other sources, sometimes with little attribution, that people are misled as to the origin of it. I remember cringing when I saw the beginning of Kill Bill I where the quote "revenge is a dish best served cold" is claimed as a Klingon proverb. Chekov of TOS would probably have pointed out that it is a Russian proverb, which is how I originally heard it, although it appears that quote is more ubiquitous and therefore its origin somewhat anomalous.
In this case it's one of those quotes that many people have agreed with and repeated, some of them famous. I think that it does echo feelings people have expressed even into antiquity; I know that there are some speeches which both Tacitus and Julius Caesar attribute to Rome's enemies which seem to be in that spirit. Our own Patrick Henry declared "give me liberty or give me death!"
It is a thing that is easier said than done. In a nation born of revolution such a spirit must continually be kept alive, and people do seem often to agree with such statements here. But it is not a thing they have been asked to actually do yet, and therefore not necessarily something they will do. Nevertheless there are enough who will that will merit the saying. I think that Thomas Jefferson was right in believing that it was necessary for people to be ready to die for such beliefs. Not because they must, or even because they will, but because being that serious about liberty and that adamant about keeping it is the only thing that will allow it to be kept alive, and allow it to grow so that ultimately all must fall under its sway. If we are willing to equivocate, to cower, to acquiesce, then tyranny will win and the natural tendency of those in power to seek its increase will continue unchecked in the absence of opposition. If we will not fight to keep our freedom we become unworthy of it in a sense and will certainly lose it. All humans *deserve* freedom and are granted it at birth; they only lose what they allow to be taken away, but when they do it is not so easily regained.
In any case, bravo on that sentiment. It was given with the best of intentions, and I fully agree with it.
I'm inclined to disagree with Newt on this and at the same time I want to do everything possible to get the barbaric bastards who keep killing innocent people. It's tough and it's only going to get tougher. The world is about to get really scary, I'm afraid.
Of course we want to stop the barbarians from taking over. After all even though Tacitus' "let them hate us so long as they fear us" has a terrifying echo in today's politics, but then look what happened to Rome in its quest to stop the barbari and what happened to the world when the barbarians won. Neither prospect is something we want for our future.
Personally I see a direct correlation in the methods used to deal with extreme violent racist groups in the US (like the Klan, the American Nazis, etc and their descendants)and the means to destroy Al Qaeda and their ilk without destroying the very thing we are fighting for. Even Bush claims that Al Qaeda hates freedom and that our freedom needs to be defended, and to a certain extent he is correct on that although he's clearly not properly defending freedom. If we lose our freedom, our openness, our ability to accept and assimilate immigrants, we will cease to be the country that we once were, and never become what we were meant to be. If we are no longer America we are no longer on the right side of the struggle. If we are no longer America the terrorists win because their goal in this war is to destroy what we are and replace it with an autocracy, preferably a theocracy, and to manipulate us with their terrorist acts.
In this country there are a lot of groups preaching hate and violence, just like Al Qaeda. They even advocate violent overthrow of the government, which is often the limit set for acts of expression becoming criminal acts. In many other countries, Germany for instance, the mere presence of these groups and what they say would be illegal. But in our country it is different. Our country was founded on Enlightenment philosophy, like the famous saying of Voltaire's* "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This means that some people will express things that are distasteful to us, even evil in our eyes, but the fact they think these things is not itself a crime although some acts they might commit in the context of such beliefs definitely are.
In any case, we have found with other groups that it actually serves society's interest to allow these groups to freely express their opinions. There is the philosophical and educational benefit that these viewpoints are then out in the open and therefore can be openly rebutted, and that perhaps those individuals might change their minds with the right kind of rebuttal (whereas if they hid their ignorance and their "shameful" beliefs no one would be able to show them why they are wrong). But more than that, from a law enforcement standpoint if people say what they believe then we know who they are and can watch what they do. When people believe in violence and say so they may be more closely observed so the actual acts of violence might be thwarted. Their groups can be infiltrated more easily when they are more open about what they do, and this is how we reduced significantly the impact of our own homegrown terrorists.
I hate to resort to analogues from movies, but there is a scene in the original "Planet of the Apes" where a kind of reversal of the above takes place. The "subversive" chimpanzees are espousing "heretical" views and Dr. Zaius says "let them talk" in response to the members of the council that want to force the chimpanzees to be silent. In that case there was no freedom of speech but even then the benefit of allowing people who you want to quash to speak was recognized, if only from the standpoint of giving them enough rope to hang themselves. In our case the only heresy we should legitimately wish to quash is that of intolerance and violence. Even so by allowing these groups to speak freely everyone gets to know who they are and
I don't seem to understand the way the law works in the USA. If I was to go online and pretend to be a slutty and 'ready for a root' 13yo girl(you could make my screen name something like 'RootRat94') am I committing a crime? If someone was to send me a lewd picture(R or X rated) because I am acting like I want a photograph of a penis then who is in the wrong? Are the penalties stiffer based on flaccidity? I believe that rock spider behaviour is abhorrent but I have very serious problems with this being acceptable police behaviour.
Apparently impersonating a minor is not a crime in the US and there are people actively impersonating children, terrorists, etc for the purpose of catching criminals. There are laws against entrapment in the US but there are very specific legal definitions that have gradually been eroded to the point that they are virtually meaningless. As far as that goes it should probably be addressed, but that's what it is.
In your scenario technically the person who sent you a picture of a penis committed a crime because they thought you were a child. It is a very fine line. Obviously we aren't supposed to have thoughtcrime (yet) in the USA but there are some things that ride the edge. Here they've made a specific law that errs on the side of protecting children from sexual predators that does rely on the defendants belief and intent.
As to whether they are to be prosecuted that depends on a lot of things. It's less likely when you are the one doing the fishing though it is possible if you were to log the conversation and submit it to the police along with some identifying bits of information the person might be investigated and perhaps ultimately charged. The standard for evidence is still pretty steep though apparently there are cases where pretty tenuous cases with little or no evidence make it through the courts.
As for your marijuana story that is pretty interesting. I think that the undercover officer's actions are probably our fault. You see long ago (basically some time in the 1960s) when both our countries (as well as quite a few others) were experiencing a blossoming, as it were, of interest in this particular plant, some people got the idea of giving the stuff away rather than selling it. It's not a big stretch especially given the culture. In some cases it was not illegal to possess this but selling was illegal. In any case giving for free was eventually ruled the same as selling in the courts. The argument was that just because the price was $0 it did not mean a sale had not occurred. I am glad the magistrate let you off, as I think this was the proper response. But we have, as you have noted, been spreading this infection to other countries and our interpretation has been used as well in other places (free/giving == selling).
I do think that the drug laws are out of whack and it's sad that things have come to such a pass. There have been some serious strong-arm tactics taken on the side of the prohibitionists and much of it is of nebulous legality in and of itself. I do think there are agendas on all sides, and people do have much to gain either way except that those who stand to gain from the status quo are also currently in power (as we say here "they're running shit." ) It's especially annoying that countries that have more liberal drug laws have been strongarmed into changing them just as states within the US were. For you the threat is a reduction of trade or the imposition of tariffs, for our states it is often (and I do think this needs to be challenged as illegal) the threat of withholding funds for services the federal government pays for such as maintenance of the interstate highway system. Recently the Czech Republic was forced to enact anti drug laws for similar reasons; I was proud of their president when I heard he had pardoned the first offender who had been caught giving out a very small amount and charged with distribution.
In any case the state of things h
I read your post and thought, "this guy has it mostly right" (getting unions in the 20s and 30s required much bloodshed so I'd correct your 1950-70s with 1920-30s and 1950-70s). I thought for a minute, "Now that the average person has realized how screwed up the US is, changes will happen".
Then I realized I was reading /. and the rants of a crazy programmer mean nothing. Maybe if linux had taken the profitable world by storm...
You are absolutely right about the 20s, etc. These things are somewhat cyclical and have been for a long period of history. It does bear some study but it's hard to quantify what is in essence qualitative data.
You are also right about the ranting. All the ranting on slashdot or youtube or whatever in the world will change nothing if words are never translated to action. I have thought for a long time that we need a real grassroots effort to change the direction of government and hack the system. The problem is keeping the momentum of such revolutionary change and avoiding the seemingly inevitable slide from revolutionary to reactionary which seems to have happened in most revolutions (I'm thinking here of our own, where the second president we had was so unable to take criticism he undertook the creation of unconstitutional law, unlawful arrest and brutal suppression of the dissenters. Or if you like the example of the revolutions of France, Cuba, and Russia which, whether you agree with their particular politics or not clearly quickly devolved into an endless struggle against counterrevolution that destroyed the stated intent of the original.
Here what we need are people who are willing to turn back the tide and stand up for human rights, who believe in what Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independance. Those people have not only to get out and vote, which for now is unlikely to effect major change although it needs doing in any case, but they must themselves stand for office and vote for one another. Whether it be under the guise of a takeover of one of the established parties, formation of a new party, a bunch of independants, or a simple coalition of like minded individuals dedicated to a common cause regardless of party affiliation, it needs doing. Nothing less will achieve the goal of re-establishing our original purpose, our rights, and the primacy of our nation as the foremost proponent of the advancement of human rights.
In the case of the police problem a simple solution has been proposed in just about every jurisdiction in the country. That is to have a citizen's council who can hear grievances and investigate alleged wrongdoing on the part of the police department. Internal affairs departments exist within police departments, but they are often suspect in their activities especially in cases like this. After all it is the foxes guarding the henhouse. There is a reason for the policy of appointing an independant council to investigate government wrongdoing. It removes the colour of corruption that would taint even the most perfect investigation of this sort conducted by the alleged perpetrators. Unfortunately what is supposed to be a proper check against the potential depredations of the President of the United States is a bridge too far for the police. In every case of which I am aware the public outcry for an independant civilian board to oversee the police department has been summarily denied. There's no vote, just the answer of no, incredibly coming from the police department itself.
While I am sure that this could be effected were the public officials we elect willing to stand up for it or were a referendum allowed, I think it is important to address the officers' concerns. To my mind they have much to gain from the implementation of such a policy. Acting more openly and submitting their actions to scrutiny, as well as actually dealing with officers who themselves commit crimes rather than simply moving them from one department to another (a
Some of the founders didn't want a bill of rights. They were completely fine with the rights idea, they were just afraid that people would decide it was an exhaustive list or get the idea that the government grants rights.
Yeah, funny how that works. I guess the people that did not want the rigts enumerated were right after all. But then given the fact that the people we have in power think they give us rights and are trying to teach generation after generation that they only get rights because the government lets them have them (there's a reason our public education system is in the toilet) it's probably good that we have something on paper that is supposed to remind them. Unfortunately they've been using it as toilet paper and making us clean up the mess. They also blatantly ignore the specifics like "make no law" and "abridge" ...
As for jailing bloggers, it already happened even before the patriot act and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. It did not start with Bush, but he sure did fire a warning shot when he very nearly outlawed web sites that dared to criticized him even before he was elected. It was only public outcry that stayed his hand, but even then he has steadily worked on laying the foundation of law that would allow him to put a stop to the voices of dissent he hates so much. For now only people whose web sites are highly critical of the government to the point that the government can claim that they are advocating an illegal point of view are actually punished, but many sites just get shut down because all they have to do is scare your ISP into dropping you. That's been going on at least since Clinton was president.
The only thing that keeps the status quo is people's fear to stick out and therefore risk being singled out. Most people just don't want to make trouble and want to be left alone. But in any police state when you allow things to degenerate enough by standing by eventually you will get tagged, too. Then it's your turn on the gulag archipelego.
" He was tazered for not leaving when asked and after he became combative and disruptive."
Not leaving when asked does not justify the use of potentially lethal torture. (Yes, stunguns are potentially lethal, and the accurate word for the deliberate infliction of agony to cause a person who is not an immediate threat to anyone's safety to comply with your demands is "torture".)
This kind of excess is unjustifiable in any case. Police officers are granted tools such as tasers and nightsticks for the specific purpose of subduing people in a non-lethal manner when they present a physical danger to the officers or others and cannot be otherwise restrained. Therefore the only appropriate use of these tools is in cases where not using them would be more dangerous to the officers (and thus potentially to the suspects) not to use them. And only the minimum force required to end the attack or cause the suspect to submit to restraint is allowable.
The manufacturer of the TASER has specifically stated that these devices can be deadly if humans are subjected to them more than once in a single episode. Every police organization in the country has training that includes that warning and processes that are supposed to uphold the above. Yet these officers clearly exceeded all reason, the manufacturer's specifications, and any semblance of necessity. If the person in question was subject to arrest and resisted violently some form of subdual may be warranted. But overkill like this is never warranted especially noting the dangers. In any case it is never allowable to attack a bound prisoner as happened here.
Watch the video. The person being tasered was not loud at all until he was being shocked, which did cause him to scream. There was no reason to arrest him in the first place. He was a student in the University library studying and minding his own business. He did not quickly present his id card when asked by the officers and then did not leave fast enough for them. He said repeatedly that he wanted to leave, but the officers were blocking his way and shocking him to make him move even after they had him handcuffed. There is no justification for that kind of behaviour. This person was not committing any crime (the closest you can come is that once someone is asked to leave they are trespassing if they stay, but even then they must be given a reasonable chance to go) and did not present a danger to anyone. He was clearly tortured without reason, in fact the police overtly say that they are using the taser as a punishment (which is not its purpose). I really don't see how these police could even think that what they were doing was right and how they were inured to the pleas of their victim and the other students to stop torturing an innocent man. The person who said it may have been justified to threaten the crowd with tasering may actually be right in that it is amazing that the crowd did not fall violently upon the officers. Nevertheless this should have been a signal to them. It's their duty to maintain peace and order, to dispell unrest and defuse out of control situations. Clearly they failed in their duty here because they continuously acted as the sole agitators and escalators in what started out as a nonevent and nearly became a bloodbath.
All I can say is don't forget your fucking library card. One does learn to cow before the police and try never to do anything to make them the least bit nervous even when they are clearly wrong and unlawfully arresting you. It just does not pay because they have the means to make you very sorry that you annoyed them and if they feel like it they will use them. Then they will get away with it because even when they kill you they do not get punished. It's sad that even the law abiding citizen must fear the police and that we must treat them as an abused wife does her husband (it's a similar relationship the citizenry have with our police force) but that's how it is and will remain unti
Well if you are going to broadly define it, as the judge has in this case and how the law has outlined it, many things fall into that category.
"1. messages distributed by electronic means from one computer user to one or more recipients via a network
2. the system of sending messages by such electronic means"
You could call a Sidekick a computer, since it does alot more than just make phone calls, and the cellphone provider attaches it to a network..so under this definition, a text message from someone on a phone would count as 'email' and would fall under this law's jurisdiction.
Zooming out a little bit, any phone-to-phone, pc-to-phone or phone-to-pc text or IM message would match up with this law. Zooming out further and something as ancient as a teletype/telegraph transmission, unlikely though it might be, would also apply. It is electronic, it is sent from an electronic device over a network to another device, with the intent of delivering information to an end user.
An earlier poster quoted "'Transmit' means to send to a specific individual known by the defendant to be a minor via electronic mail." I have to take issue with the wording here, because it's disputable whether or not one could really 'know' someone online is a minor prior to meeting them, just like most people don't know the person on the other end of the heated cybersex chat is a bloated over-50 transvestite bus driver. There is a certain amount of assumption here but I wouldn't call it 'knowing' by any stretch. But, for the purpose of keeping molesters locked up (which is especially prevalent in Florida for some reason), I suppose the wording is 'good enough'.
Actually in the case of "knowing" someone is a minor, the law probably should say "known or believed to be" as it does when talking about the knowledge that the data being transmitted is harmful. Nevertheless in this case it seems to ahve been applied in that way. The "minor" that receoived the communication was an adult police officer and the sender believed that the police officer was a 13 year old girl. The intent of the act was the deciding factor here. I think you are right to worry about whether a person knows that the person on the other end is a minor. That could present a problem.
In fact it already is because in many cases statutory rape and other laws against sexual acts with minors put the onus on the adult to know whether the other person is a minor or not. Even if they believe that the person they are committing the act with is of age they are still guilty. That higher standard probably derives from the fact that the physical act is much more hazardous, it should be easier to tell that the person involved is a minor in such cases, and again the adult has the greater responsibility in all interactions with a minor. Nevertheless it does open the possibility that in interactions like this a person could potentially end up in trouble sending the wrong thing to someone who turns out to be a minor. It does go back to the usual precautions, though that you should know someone as well as you can before you go doing something like this. However it is true that in this case the defendant did believe that the person he was sending these messages and images to was a minor and it is hoped that in other cases the situation and intent will be applied to deciding the case just as it was here.
But that's not what I started to reply to you for. I noticed that you and several others seem to be worried about a widening of the scope of the law in question. It does seem to me to be a case of myopia in that you're missing the big picture. No matter how wide this law's reach were to become (smoke signals, sign language, long-distance yodelling) it is the message that matters. The only thing that is criminalized here is the intentional transmission of obscene content to a minor. That is, basically the fact that a person might engage in lewd talk with a minor,
And really, what made "email" worthy of its own add-on penalties, beyond the existing penalties for solicitation of a minor?
I'm not sure but it looks like this guy was trying to get away altogether with the fact he solicited a minor on the argument that soliciting a minor over instant messaging was not illegal. That's a bit scary. As for "added penalties," given what this guy was up to I think 5 years probation is an awfully light penalty. Maybe we need more, or someone needs to get some balls and start applying the law properly.
What about faxes? A fax is for transmitting printed matter or images by electronic means. Does this mean that any letter that is scanned into an electronic format is now considered an e-mail upon transmission? I think that defining a term "ambiguous" (email in this case) that has a specific meaning to justify a specific outcome is a very slippery slope that the justices should avoid.
The fax does not become email just as the IM did not become email. However the act would probably be illegal if the data you transmitted was obscene and you deliberately sent it to a minor (for instance if you sent a fax to a 13 year old girl asking for sex).
The whole point of the ruling is that it's not the specific method of transmission that is criminal here. It is the transmission of lewd material to a minor that is illegal. Having phone sex with a 13 year old girl over tin cans and a string is just as wrong and very probably illegal.
Actually, the stronger issue is that companies are required to maintain e-mail records for X number of years - in case of court cases, audits, etc. This ruling now makes companies accountable for maintaining IM traffic (and possibly other similar data) as well. THAT will be of grave issue.
That's a misunderstanding both of how the system works and of the ruling itself. First off, this ruling only applies to Florida. Second the only thing that was decided here was that the anti-solicitation law passed in Florida applies to email and the defendant was granted due process. This has no bearing on the laws regarding archival (although I wonder why you call it such an issue since all corporate IM servers support logging and archival and implementing that on other protocols is routine and trivial).
It would be a real stretch to apply this case as precedent for the purpose of proving that the laws regarding archiving electronic communication apply to IMs because most of the tests that generated this ruling would not apply to such a case. To wit, whereas it is clear that the defendant should reasonably have understood that propositioning a 13 year old girl over the internet was illegal, it is far less clear that a corporation should think that the lack of archival of chat traffic runs afoul of the law. (Though, again, it seems just to be common sense that they should do it without a law. If a form of communication is important to your business you should keep records. That's why I log all of my chat conversations and keep all of my emails. )
Likewise this ruling depended on the interpretation of the intent of the legislature in passing the law. I don't think this case is useful precedent in proving that laws requiring businesses to archive communication apply to IM traffic. Some of the precedent cited here might, but the case doesn't apply to that law in particular. In any case it won't automatically happen. Someone with a case or controversy pertaining to the archival laws must come before the court and argue that they were meant to apply to IMs. Then they have to win and that ruling has to be upheld. Until that happens or the law is changed there is no reason for fear. IANAL.
In this case, as well as the one you stated, Expost Facto certainly applies. Expost facto being latin for "After the fact". In the United States, you cannot arrest someone for breaking a law, then change the law to include them.
You can now! Well, you shouldn't be able to, but it was done. Nevertheless ex post facto has zero to do with this case or the parent's suggestions.
If they have even halfway decent attornies, they should realise that their convictions are null-in-void. The situation you named follows the same standard. Cant arrest someone for something that isn't yet in the books, or go back and arrest them after the fact, as it was legal then.
First off, it's "null and void." There's a reason we choose the words we use in phrases. It's not to remind people of the sound they heard on the TV the last time some sitcom character used it. In any case, what are you talking about? The fact someone was convicted illegally does not automagically void their conviction. The conviction stands unless a defendant's appeal succeeds in proving to a court that the conviction was unlawful. None of this has to do with ex post facto. Ex post facto is a limitation on the powers of the legislative branch. It means "after the fact" as you said, and it does mean that you cannot apply a law passed in the future to actions taken in the past, but that is not what was done here. The law in question was on the books when the defendant committed his crime. No new law was passed. The judges interpreted the law as one intended to outlaw the actions taken by the defendant. If you have issue with their ruling that is one thing (I happen not to since the ruling reads as being on the up and up), but ex post facto this is most certainly not.
And to be clear, IANAL
You have made that abundantly clear. No one should mistake me for a lawyer either.
Hmmm... interesting politically moral question.
Do we do what's right with regards to justice?
Or do we do what's right with regards to (legal) policy?
I would side with the judge and say this law should include IM's and any electronic communication, VoIP, blogs (MySpace), etc. However, this does leave open the attack for a different case, where it's not as obvious or the crime is not as heinous, to be exploited in the same regards... think RIAA.
I think this is a situation where one has to weight the seriousness of the crime against the importance of the law.
This makes me think of the case in Wisconsin where 2 guys saw a picture in the newspaper of a 21 year old girl who recently died in an accident. They thought she looked pretty so they went and bought some condoms and dug up her grave. They where caught at the cemetery, before anything could come about, but since there were no laws on the book, they couldn't stick any charges to these guys.
This is a situation, again, where the law should be capable of proper punishment of these people and not just some petty crime because 'there was nothing on the books specifically'. In a perfect world, we would all agree and we wouldn't need written laws because we could just file things case by case, but that's just not realistic.
Cheers,
Fozzy
First off, IANAL and YANAL. However, the submitter is completely out of his tree here. This is not a question of justice vs the rule of law. If only for the simple fact that the defendant was granted due process and the ruling in question was made and upheld by the applicable courts, we're not talking about a breach of the rule of law. But it does not stop there. This is a perfectly normal ruling on an established matter of law in keeping with similar rulings by other courts on other laws. The judges cited (and were guided by) precedent in their ruling just as they should. They relied on precedent both to determine whether it was proper to grant the dismissal of the charge based on the vagueness of the law and to determine whether the law was in fact vague. They followed the law to the letter in this case as evidenced by their ruling.
It is not uncommon at all for courts to rule based on the perceived intent of the lawmakers writing a law just as they rule on the perceived intent of the parties involved in an action. It's also not uncommon for defense lawyers to argue for some narrow interpretation of law that would result in the charges against his client being dismissed. That may be a surprise to slashdot, but this happens all the time, and not just in Florida. It certainly does not only happen with laws involving technology. Sometimes the courts rule that the law should cover the offence in question because certain legal tests are met, which basically boils down to the question of whether the action in question was in fact the action lawmakers were intending to criminalize/prevent when they passed the law. Sometimes judges rule for a narrower interpretation than the prosecution wants, because the law has been stretched too far and the aforementioned legal tests are not met.
In other words it is a judgment call. They are judges. This is what they do. It is their function in our system of adversarial due process just as it is the function of the defense to try to get his client off scot free and of the prosecution to nail him to the wall. But in a properly ordered system none of this happens by fiat. No one is pulling rulings out of their ass. And guess what they did not this time. They cited their sources and explained how their ruling follows the law. Go ahead and read the actual ruling and then come back with a coherent legal argument as to why this is not due process.
To get back to the technical nitpick which brough slashdot into a snit in the first place... Of course it makes sense that the lawmakers who wrote this law were not the most technically savvy people in the world. But
Almost all of the money made by open source has been made by exploiting open source. Yes most of the internet runs on OSS. But how many of the billions if not trillions of dollars has made it back to the pockets of the developers of the big parts like Apache? I would guess not much since even Apache has a 'donations' link on their site.
Apache Software Foundation (apache.org) has a donation link on their site because they are a non-profit corporation. So by definition they don't make money. That does not mean they don't get money and resources; it just means that they use it all on improving the product.
That said, the companies listed (and many others) have indeed contributed to as well as profited from open source software. IBM spends billions every year on Linux alone. And where do you think all that code comes from? the magic code monkeys? People that work for these companies are either paid directly to work on open source software or allowed to do so because of permissive policies that derive directly from the fact that those companies are making money from the profit of their labour.
Meanwhile all of this work is shared and the wheel does not have to be reinvented. IBM benefits from the code contributed by Sun as well as Chucky down the street. And it works the other way too. And all of them are making money ... I mean even Chucky gets a job or can do consulting work because he's been working on this stuff all that time. Like when AOL hired all the Mozilla people. Or RMS's consulting, which probably has not made him particularly rich, though he is not exactly starving to death.
There are a lot of ways to make money from open source. Some of the easiest ways involve working with or for companies, but there are others. Still, to focus too much on the aspect of direct monetary gain is to miss the greatest benefits of free software / open source. The best thing about the software is when you actually get to USE the software. Sure, you can contribute code if you want to, and you can customize it for your needs, but ultimately you derive gain from the fact that you can use the software freely, unencumbered by onerous licenses and likely free as in beer as well. That means that whether you need software for your business or for personal use you have easy access to it and you don;t really have to do anything to get it other than go get it.
Maybe your business is making money from free software (lots of people and companies do). Maybe you are doing something else but you use free software to accomplish those ends (way more companies are doing that). Maybe you just use it to learn, or because you feel like it. But no matter what you end up saving time, money, and other resources because you are benefitting from the community, and thus you profit from the use of Open Source / Free Software.
You mean to tell me that it only just now occurred to someone to send an entangled photon through a spool of fiber and see how it affects its twin, which took a direct path?
Also, I thought entanglement couldn't be used to transmit information, as a consequence of Somebody or Another's Law.
Can anyone clarify just what this poorly-written and sensational article is actually saying?
No, this is Slashdot. You want real physicists, and you're probably barking up the wrong tree.
However you may receive several answers. They are statistically likely not to include the right answer to your question, but rather to fall into one of the following categories (in fact you may just get all of these):
1) Someone will pretend they know what they are talking about and give you a very long and detailed answer. Unfortunately it will be horribly wrong, but only people with the proper background will realize it (ie no one here). :D
2) Someone will post a completely offtopic ad hominem attack on you for no particular reason (brain hurt! must strike thing that make brain hurt!) for bonus it will probably have something to do with your sexual proclivities and/or your mother.
3) Someone will post a completely unrelated troll hoping to get people to actually read it.
4) Someone will post a smart-aleck comment predicting the reasons you will not receive your answer (Hi there!)
5) In Soviet Russia, ??? profits you!