The proxies behind which Microsoft sits and which are run by Akamai and over which MS has no control run Linux. MS's own webservers are running Windows, as evidenced by the IIS 6.0 headers coming back and which are shown on that same site.
Because placing the master key for something outside of the control of the entity for which it's intended to be used weakens the system tremendously. You have no control over how or when it's used, and unscrupulous individuals may be able to find a way into the system and then be able to read all of your confidential files. This is the same argument that has been around for the last ten years or more with PGP, and probably much further back then that, and which was immortalized during the attempted implementation of the Clipper chip.
My experience in large firms is that the law departments use what the rest of the company uses, with the other application as an occasional backup if it's present at all. Five major firms, three of them Fortune 500 companies, have adhered to this in the last six or seven years that I've been noticing.
So the executive flying to L.A. won't be able to access the documents while on a 4-hour flight. Nor will he be able to do so from the hotel unless they open up the firewall to let him access the authentication server--something that seems inherently dangerous considering it's Microsoft we're talking about.
Do you think MS doesn't even use their own software? Their executives spend a lot of time jetting around the world for various reasons, be they business, lobbying, or vacation. I doubt they would be so short-sighted as to not put some method of permission caching in place. Personally, I see this being used in corporate law departments and in R&D divisions, where the ability to lock people out of something even if they do have possession of it would be invaluable.
Besides, if it's hard to use or if there's not a real need for it, people simply won't use it. A lot of features get his treatment -- how many places do you know of that have even tried to implement the shared editing features?
For it's role it beats the shit out of any helicopter (fast enough to do the job more fuel efficient, heavier loads,) and and cargo plane (no need for a JATO unit, can't run a C5 off a carrier).
First point correct, second point misses the mark. The C-5 (and the C-17 and C-141) are entirely different classes of aircraft than the V-22. The V-22 is designed more to set troops into action like a conventional helicopter such as the Black Hawk does, though I believe it's possible to parachute from them. The other three are primarily cargo aircraft with secondary airborne capacity. Their ranges also beat out the Osprey's.
There have also been plans for a gunship version of the V22, with a massive rotary cannon and the ability to fly very slow it's even going to make the A-10 look a bit lightweight
That's also going to require putting a lot of armor onto an Osprey, and I don't know if it can handle that. Your performance statistics seem to be off of the real mark, judging by the Navy's version of things. With a max speed of only 275mph, and what looks to be a fairly small difference between the empty and various max-takeoff weights, I don't see this becoming a challenge to the A-10 anytime soon, since that plane not only carries the GAU-8/A (with its weight of 281kg plus a kilo for every round), but also up to 7250kg of payload underneath it. I've seen pictures of them with a bevy of Mavericks slung underneath, and it's a menacing sight.
Getting back to the original story topic, though, I can't see yet how this idea would translate into a usable large aircraft as the submitter is hoping. The forces are significantly higher at the wingtip than at the root which is going to stress the wings in an increasing fashion the longer they are, not to mention the material fatigue from a material that is constantly changing directions. I can see this used as they envision now, with small drones or perhaps as a new ultralight, but I can't see how the increased lift would be generated efficiently for a replacement to even a small troop transport like the Osprey.
And this is different from/home how? Users are encouraged to save their personal files to their/home directory on *nix, but can select other locations as they like and are permitted. On Windows, I keep my graphics in one directory, music in another, and my downloads in a third, and these are all separate from My Documents. Nobody's being forced to use My Documents any more than they're being forced to use/home (subject to permission restrictions), and there's not even an attempt to force things. Hell, Microsoft's own Office apps even allow the default save location to be changed right from the Options dialog.
My Documents has improved things significantly for most users, since they're not as likely to drop everything into the system root or scatter them in twenty-seven different app-specific directories. The folder can be also directed to other locations with little effort for those that really want to do this.
You know, that occurred to me, too. What happens if you drop something or brush a key accidentally? If you drop a pen on a contract and it leaves a mark, that's not your signature, so the contract is not enforceable.
Having your 5-year-old kid do it could be construed as an active attempt to avoid the responsibilities of the contract. However, there are a lot of people who would just say to their teenager, "Bobby, I'm busy here. Can you go set up the laptop for me?" Whether it's being done to avoid the license or out of ignorance of how to truly set it up, you never saw the license, and so you never knew about it.
There is also little direct proof that you clicked the approval. What if your kid got to the laptop first and went through it? If the kid is under 18, it's a gray area at best on the applicability of a contract to him. Are you responsible then for a contract you never saw that was "signed" by someone not able to sign a contract alone in the first place?
Traffic ticket, no. Parking ticket, yes. But the issue is more about automated systems. In the case of a traffic ticket, one can argue circumstances. In the case of a parking ticket, one can take photos showing obscured signs or other issues that can mitigate the problem. When it comes to automated systems, the courts aren't nearly as lenient, because they have the photographic evidence before them.
There has been some backlash, particularly in San Diego, but in other places as well. When the issues were challenged in court, systems were tested, and dozens of them around the country were found to have been calibrated improperly, and some people who were tagged as running red lights actually were driving legally.
On a side note, I wonder if the number of people speeding would crash the system on the first day. Government's never been known for getting more mundane computing system requirements right on the first try. That would be amusing.:)
There will be no prosecutor in something like this, but instead just someone reviewing things for proper form. This will work similar to red-light cameras, where someone simply reviews the photo to make sure that things are clear and the plates match the OCR, and it's then sent on its way. No prosecutor or judge involved; you're automatically guilty and must pay a fine. I'm sure there will be a method by which appeals can be made, but I imagine that a lot of highway construction funding will be available in the first year or so after something like this would go into effect.
A lot more stuff will install off-the-shelf in scripted fashion, or already be installed.
And this is one of the major security problems.
In my last job, I was a bit of a security hawk, particularly on the Win2K boxes. I managed to get procedures in place to remove all of the selectable modules during installation, and then disable unnecessary services (like RPC on some boxes) and features (like the POSIX subsystem). I wish I could have removed OE, but since it was never configured with a server through which it could send, I wasn't too bothered by it. The Unix guys would configure our Solaris boxes by adding in a lot of things "just in case", even to webservers. I never questioned them on it, since I figured they knew better, but something always rubbed me the wrong way on it.
Some *nix distributions can be just as bad as Windows in installing unneeded items, and some people are even worse about throwing in more. Extra code means extra room for bugs on any software.
Personally, I want to see other countries get into space, which will fire our own govt. up to fund OUR space program better, which everyone gains from, including you.
Exactly.
Up until this happened, I knew of only a handful of countries with actual or attempted launch capacity (successful or not): US, Russia/Ukraine, ESA, China, India, and Japan (and one other seems to be eluding my mind, but I could be mistaken). I welcome Brazil joining this tiny club, because if Brazil can do it, so can other countries, and it gets more of the world involved in space, which puts more minds to work on the problems and improves things that much more for the world. Maybe Brazil will become the world's primary heavy-lift launch point. Maybe an African equatorial nation will want to host a space elevator.
Involving the world is good. Encouraging them to get up and dust themselves off after an incident like this is essential.
Would it not be cheaper to contract with the USA, ESA, Russia, or even China to launch satellites to monitor their country than to develop an entire space program on its own? The satellites might cost a couple hundred million dollars to design, build, launch, and manage, but how much did the Brazilian cosmodrome cost? What about the cost of the R&D for the rocket?
There is a pride concern for Brazil. They have an enormous opportunity, and they know it, as they sit on the equator, and have the best chance to get the best performance out of launch vehicles. What the US and especially Russia struggle to do from their launch locations would be much easier for Brazil. The Energia heavy-lift booster was capable of a 100,000kg capacity from Baikonur, and supposedly could be expanded to 200,000kg with additional strap-on boosters, and that's from 46 degrees above the equator. How much additional payload would be possible from an on- or near-equator launch? This is certainly a best-case scenario, but even with something like the Atlas V and its 13,000kg payload capacity, even modest additional payload could allow just one more transmitter or one more instrument to be added, or to have just that much better an orbit be reached.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
This means that a state governor could make use of military force to engage an approaching invasion force prior to an actual invasion, but does not allow military force to be used in an offensive manner, as authorizating for this role resides with Congress (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11). In current terms, such interceptions would not occur, since radio would allow federal authorities to act on a military threat essentially as quickly as a governor could.
Re:The general problem with books and movies is...
on
The Trilogy as One
·
· Score: 1
Mostly because if the first bombs, then they know the last two will also likely bomb, but if they don't make the second and third, then they will have run into a public relations nightmare.
He specified "in Nevada", which suggests he was referring to state law, not federal. In any case, Title 21, Chapter 13, Subchapter II, Section 960(b)(4) states in part:
In the case of a violation under subsection (a) of this section with respect to less than 50 kilograms of marihuana, except in the case of 100 or more marihuana plants regardless of weight...the person committing such violation shall be imprisoned not more than five years, or be fined not to exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $250,000 if the defendant is an individual or $1,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both.
That's for possession with intent to distribute. For lesser issues (known as simple possession), Title 21, Chapter 13, Subchapter I, Part D, Section 844 states, in part:
It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance unless such substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter.... Any person who violates this subsection may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 1 year, and shall be fined a minimum of $1,000, or both, except that if he commits such offense after a prior conviction under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or a prior conviction for any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State, has become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 15 days but not more than 2 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $2,500, except, further, that if he commits such offense after two or more prior convictions under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or two or more prior convictions for any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State, or a combination of two or more such offenses have become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 90 days but not more than 3 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $5,000.
Short version: No more than one year on first offense, 15 days to 2 years on second offense, and 90 days to 3 years on subsequent offenses. Nowhere does either federal or state law mandate a 25-year minimum sentence.
Try getting busted for possesion even if wrongly, you will change your attitude damn fast you lemming like sheep.
I provide law references to attempt to deal with the FUD generated here, and your response is an attempt to throw an insult at me, presuming, it would seem, that I am in full support of what the government does, a position which you have not bothered to check. FUD does no good on either side of a debate, and in this case I was not taking either side, but simply correcting potential misperceptions and misunderstandings. I will not apologize if you take offense to simple truth, but I will attempt to clarify a few things.
My brother was wrongly accused of possession of meth. Once the police realized it was not his and he had nothing to do with it, charges were dropped, and nothing further happened. His best friend was busted on simple possession; he got time served, which was a couple of weeks, and assignment to a program. An aquaintance of mine was busted on federal charges for possession. He got three months, a nice fine, and that was it. Contrary to popular counter-culture belief, not everyone that gets busted loses their house and car and all their money. In order for that to happen, serious intent is needed, and for that, one has to possess more than a few ounces of pot.
Your life is over because some prick cop notices you're wearing a hemp necklace.
That's a hemp product.
On the intent to sell, the only section I can find is 453.339, which starts at 100 pounds, very different from the 4g or 28g for other drugs.
But as this is not codified in the law, it remains an open hole which those within "the system" can use to punish those who they deem fit. In other words, it is no justice at all.
I quoted section 453.3363 before, but I'll quote it again.
NRS 453.3363 Suspension of proceedings and probation of accused under certain conditions; effect of discharge and dismissal.
1. If a person who has not previously been convicted of any offense pursuant to NRS 453.011 to 453.552, inclusive, or pursuant to any statute of the United States or of any state relating to narcotic drugs, marijuana, or stimulant, depressant or hallucinogenic substances tenders a plea of guilty, guilty but mentally ill, nolo contendere or similar plea to a charge pursuant to subsection 2 or 3 of NRS 453.336, NRS 453.411 or 454.351, or is found guilty of one of those charges, the court, without entering a judgment of conviction and with the consent of the accused, may suspend further proceedings and place him on probation upon terms and conditions that must include attendance and successful completion of an educational program or, in the case of a person dependent upon drugs, of a program of treatment and rehabilitation pursuant to NRS 453.580.
Looking up section 453.580, we find:
NRS 453.580 Program for treatment of certain offenders: Powers and duties of court; contents; payment of costs. 4. Before the court assigns a person to a program pursuant to this section, the person must agree to pay the cost of the program to which he is assigned and the cost of any additional supervision required pursuant to subsection 3, to the extent of his financial resources. If the person does not have the financial resources to pay all of the related costs, the court shall, to the extent practicable, arrange for the person to be assigned to a program at a facility that receives a sufficient amount of federal or state funding to offset the remainder of the costs.
I've seen some pretty lenient judges on fines and restitution to the state, allowing payment over a period of a year or more. I'm not sure if Nevada allows such leniency, but I imagine that it does. In any case, the law allows for assignment to a state-supported facility to aid in the payment of the costs, though the defendant may be required to pay part or all of the costs to the extent reasonably possible.
I thought the original poster was way off-base, as I didn't see how a 25-year mandatory minimum on a first offense for possession without intent to sell could survive a court challenge. The law is a little convoluted, what with references to other sections all over, but not too difficult with a little effort.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean the NiMH rechargeables that power it for about 20 hours or so of playback, and which I throw back in the charger overnight every few days?
The proxies behind which Microsoft sits and which are run by Akamai and over which MS has no control run Linux. MS's own webservers are running Windows, as evidenced by the IIS 6.0 headers coming back and which are shown on that same site.
Because placing the master key for something outside of the control of the entity for which it's intended to be used weakens the system tremendously. You have no control over how or when it's used, and unscrupulous individuals may be able to find a way into the system and then be able to read all of your confidential files. This is the same argument that has been around for the last ten years or more with PGP, and probably much further back then that, and which was immortalized during the attempted implementation of the Clipper chip.
My experience in large firms is that the law departments use what the rest of the company uses, with the other application as an occasional backup if it's present at all. Five major firms, three of them Fortune 500 companies, have adhered to this in the last six or seven years that I've been noticing.
So the executive flying to L.A. won't be able to access the documents while on a 4-hour flight. Nor will he be able to do so from the hotel unless they open up the firewall to let him access the authentication server--something that seems inherently dangerous considering it's Microsoft we're talking about.
Do you think MS doesn't even use their own software? Their executives spend a lot of time jetting around the world for various reasons, be they business, lobbying, or vacation. I doubt they would be so short-sighted as to not put some method of permission caching in place. Personally, I see this being used in corporate law departments and in R&D divisions, where the ability to lock people out of something even if they do have possession of it would be invaluable.
Besides, if it's hard to use or if there's not a real need for it, people simply won't use it. A lot of features get his treatment -- how many places do you know of that have even tried to implement the shared editing features?
For it's role it beats the shit out of any helicopter (fast enough to do the job more fuel efficient, heavier loads,) and and cargo plane (no need for a JATO unit, can't run a C5 off a carrier).
First point correct, second point misses the mark. The C-5 (and the C-17 and C-141) are entirely different classes of aircraft than the V-22. The V-22 is designed more to set troops into action like a conventional helicopter such as the Black Hawk does, though I believe it's possible to parachute from them. The other three are primarily cargo aircraft with secondary airborne capacity. Their ranges also beat out the Osprey's.
There have also been plans for a gunship version of the V22, with a massive rotary cannon and the ability to fly very slow it's even going to make the A-10 look a bit lightweight
That's also going to require putting a lot of armor onto an Osprey, and I don't know if it can handle that. Your performance statistics seem to be off of the real mark, judging by the Navy's version of things. With a max speed of only 275mph, and what looks to be a fairly small difference between the empty and various max-takeoff weights, I don't see this becoming a challenge to the A-10 anytime soon, since that plane not only carries the GAU-8/A (with its weight of 281kg plus a kilo for every round), but also up to 7250kg of payload underneath it. I've seen pictures of them with a bevy of Mavericks slung underneath, and it's a menacing sight.
Getting back to the original story topic, though, I can't see yet how this idea would translate into a usable large aircraft as the submitter is hoping. The forces are significantly higher at the wingtip than at the root which is going to stress the wings in an increasing fashion the longer they are, not to mention the material fatigue from a material that is constantly changing directions. I can see this used as they envision now, with small drones or perhaps as a new ultralight, but I can't see how the increased lift would be generated efficiently for a replacement to even a small troop transport like the Osprey.
And this is different from /home how? Users are encouraged to save their personal files to their /home directory on *nix, but can select other locations as they like and are permitted. On Windows, I keep my graphics in one directory, music in another, and my downloads in a third, and these are all separate from My Documents. Nobody's being forced to use My Documents any more than they're being forced to use /home (subject to permission restrictions), and there's not even an attempt to force things. Hell, Microsoft's own Office apps even allow the default save location to be changed right from the Options dialog.
My Documents has improved things significantly for most users, since they're not as likely to drop everything into the system root or scatter them in twenty-seven different app-specific directories. The folder can be also directed to other locations with little effort for those that really want to do this.
Read Fucking The Article?
Are you Russian?
You know, that occurred to me, too. What happens if you drop something or brush a key accidentally? If you drop a pen on a contract and it leaves a mark, that's not your signature, so the contract is not enforceable.
Having your 5-year-old kid do it could be construed as an active attempt to avoid the responsibilities of the contract. However, there are a lot of people who would just say to their teenager, "Bobby, I'm busy here. Can you go set up the laptop for me?" Whether it's being done to avoid the license or out of ignorance of how to truly set it up, you never saw the license, and so you never knew about it.
There is also little direct proof that you clicked the approval. What if your kid got to the laptop first and went through it? If the kid is under 18, it's a gray area at best on the applicability of a contract to him. Are you responsible then for a contract you never saw that was "signed" by someone not able to sign a contract alone in the first place?
Traffic ticket, no. Parking ticket, yes. But the issue is more about automated systems. In the case of a traffic ticket, one can argue circumstances. In the case of a parking ticket, one can take photos showing obscured signs or other issues that can mitigate the problem. When it comes to automated systems, the courts aren't nearly as lenient, because they have the photographic evidence before them.
There has been some backlash, particularly in San Diego, but in other places as well. When the issues were challenged in court, systems were tested, and dozens of them around the country were found to have been calibrated improperly, and some people who were tagged as running red lights actually were driving legally.
:)
On a side note, I wonder if the number of people speeding would crash the system on the first day. Government's never been known for getting more mundane computing system requirements right on the first try. That would be amusing.
There will be no prosecutor in something like this, but instead just someone reviewing things for proper form. This will work similar to red-light cameras, where someone simply reviews the photo to make sure that things are clear and the plates match the OCR, and it's then sent on its way. No prosecutor or judge involved; you're automatically guilty and must pay a fine. I'm sure there will be a method by which appeals can be made, but I imagine that a lot of highway construction funding will be available in the first year or so after something like this would go into effect.
And after that, are we counting from one or zero?
A lot more stuff will install off-the-shelf in scripted fashion, or already be installed.
And this is one of the major security problems.
In my last job, I was a bit of a security hawk, particularly on the Win2K boxes. I managed to get procedures in place to remove all of the selectable modules during installation, and then disable unnecessary services (like RPC on some boxes) and features (like the POSIX subsystem). I wish I could have removed OE, but since it was never configured with a server through which it could send, I wasn't too bothered by it. The Unix guys would configure our Solaris boxes by adding in a lot of things "just in case", even to webservers. I never questioned them on it, since I figured they knew better, but something always rubbed me the wrong way on it.
Some *nix distributions can be just as bad as Windows in installing unneeded items, and some people are even worse about throwing in more. Extra code means extra room for bugs on any software.
You're right. I was usually thinking something like, "When is this fight scene going to end?"
Personally, I want to see other countries get into space, which will fire our own govt. up to fund OUR space program better, which everyone gains from, including you.
Exactly.
Up until this happened, I knew of only a handful of countries with actual or attempted launch capacity (successful or not): US, Russia/Ukraine, ESA, China, India, and Japan (and one other seems to be eluding my mind, but I could be mistaken). I welcome Brazil joining this tiny club, because if Brazil can do it, so can other countries, and it gets more of the world involved in space, which puts more minds to work on the problems and improves things that much more for the world. Maybe Brazil will become the world's primary heavy-lift launch point. Maybe an African equatorial nation will want to host a space elevator.
Involving the world is good. Encouraging them to get up and dust themselves off after an incident like this is essential.
Would it not be cheaper to contract with the USA, ESA, Russia, or even China to launch satellites to monitor their country than to develop an entire space program on its own? The satellites might cost a couple hundred million dollars to design, build, launch, and manage, but how much did the Brazilian cosmodrome cost? What about the cost of the R&D for the rocket?
There is a pride concern for Brazil. They have an enormous opportunity, and they know it, as they sit on the equator, and have the best chance to get the best performance out of launch vehicles. What the US and especially Russia struggle to do from their launch locations would be much easier for Brazil. The Energia heavy-lift booster was capable of a 100,000kg capacity from Baikonur, and supposedly could be expanded to 200,000kg with additional strap-on boosters, and that's from 46 degrees above the equator. How much additional payload would be possible from an on- or near-equator launch? This is certainly a best-case scenario, but even with something like the Atlas V and its 13,000kg payload capacity, even modest additional payload could allow just one more transmitter or one more instrument to be added, or to have just that much better an orbit be reached.
US Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause 3:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
This means that a state governor could make use of military force to engage an approaching invasion force prior to an actual invasion, but does not allow military force to be used in an offensive manner, as authorizating for this role resides with Congress (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11). In current terms, such interceptions would not occur, since radio would allow federal authorities to act on a military threat essentially as quickly as a governor could.
Mostly because if the first bombs, then they know the last two will also likely bomb, but if they don't make the second and third, then they will have run into a public relations nightmare.
He specified "in Nevada", which suggests he was referring to state law, not federal. In any case, Title 21, Chapter 13, Subchapter II, Section 960(b)(4) states in part:
... Any person who violates this subsection may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 1 year, and shall be fined a minimum of $1,000, or both, except that if he commits such offense after a prior conviction under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or a prior conviction for any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State, has become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 15 days but not more than 2 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $2,500, except, further, that if he commits such offense after two or more prior convictions under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or two or more prior convictions for any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State, or a combination of two or more such offenses have become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 90 days but not more than 3 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $5,000.
In the case of a violation under subsection (a) of this section with respect to less than 50 kilograms of marihuana, except in the case of 100 or more marihuana plants regardless of weight...the person committing such violation shall be imprisoned not more than five years, or be fined not to exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $250,000 if the defendant is an individual or $1,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both.
That's for possession with intent to distribute. For lesser issues (known as simple possession), Title 21, Chapter 13, Subchapter I, Part D, Section 844 states, in part:
It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance unless such substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter.
Short version: No more than one year on first offense, 15 days to 2 years on second offense, and 90 days to 3 years on subsequent offenses. Nowhere does either federal or state law mandate a 25-year minimum sentence.
Try getting busted for possesion even if wrongly, you will change your attitude damn fast you lemming like sheep.
I provide law references to attempt to deal with the FUD generated here, and your response is an attempt to throw an insult at me, presuming, it would seem, that I am in full support of what the government does, a position which you have not bothered to check. FUD does no good on either side of a debate, and in this case I was not taking either side, but simply correcting potential misperceptions and misunderstandings. I will not apologize if you take offense to simple truth, but I will attempt to clarify a few things.
My brother was wrongly accused of possession of meth. Once the police realized it was not his and he had nothing to do with it, charges were dropped, and nothing further happened. His best friend was busted on simple possession; he got time served, which was a couple of weeks, and assignment to a program. An aquaintance of mine was busted on federal charges for possession. He got three months, a nice fine, and that was it. Contrary to popular counter-culture belief, not everyone that gets busted loses their house and car and all their money. In order for that to happen, serious intent is needed, and for that, one has to possess more than a few ounces of pot.
His final sentence:
Your life is over because some prick cop notices you're wearing a hemp necklace.
That's a hemp product.
On the intent to sell, the only section I can find is 453.339, which starts at 100 pounds, very different from the 4g or 28g for other drugs.
But as this is not codified in the law, it remains an open hole which those within "the system" can use to punish those who they deem fit. In other words, it is no justice at all.
I quoted section 453.3363 before, but I'll quote it again.
NRS 453.3363 Suspension of proceedings and probation of accused under certain conditions; effect of discharge and dismissal.
1. If a person who has not previously been convicted of any offense pursuant to NRS 453.011 to 453.552, inclusive, or pursuant to any statute of the United States or of any state relating to narcotic drugs, marijuana, or stimulant, depressant or hallucinogenic substances tenders a plea of guilty, guilty but mentally ill, nolo contendere or similar plea to a charge pursuant to subsection 2 or 3 of NRS 453.336, NRS 453.411 or 454.351, or is found guilty of one of those charges, the court, without entering a judgment of conviction and with the consent of the accused, may suspend further proceedings and place him on probation upon terms and conditions that must include attendance and successful completion of an educational program or, in the case of a person dependent upon drugs, of a program of treatment and rehabilitation pursuant to NRS 453.580.
Looking up section 453.580, we find:
NRS 453.580 Program for treatment of certain offenders: Powers and duties of court; contents; payment of costs.
4. Before the court assigns a person to a program pursuant to this section, the person must agree to pay the cost of the program to which he is assigned and the cost of any additional supervision required pursuant to subsection 3, to the extent of his financial resources. If the person does not have the financial resources to pay all of the related costs, the court shall, to the extent practicable, arrange for the person to be assigned to a program at a facility that receives a sufficient amount of federal or state funding to offset the remainder of the costs.
I've seen some pretty lenient judges on fines and restitution to the state, allowing payment over a period of a year or more. I'm not sure if Nevada allows such leniency, but I imagine that it does. In any case, the law allows for assignment to a state-supported facility to aid in the payment of the costs, though the defendant may be required to pay part or all of the costs to the extent reasonably possible.
I thought the original poster was way off-base, as I didn't see how a 25-year mandatory minimum on a first offense for possession without intent to sell could survive a court challenge. The law is a little convoluted, what with references to other sections all over, but not too difficult with a little effort.
Perhaps, except that there's no way to recall a sitting president. You can only impeach and convict.