He's not a dictator in any sense. A majority of Turks are very clearly supportive of him. There is very little doubt about this.
That's what happens when you ruthlessly suppress your opposition. How is the general public supposed to oppose their leader when all the bad information about that leader is hidden?
The *dictionary* definitions of the terms (legal or otherwise) are totally irrelevant.
Whoever told you that is one of the liars to whom I referred. These are the games lawyers play to screw the rest of us. Just use a different name for the same thing and you don't have to apply all the rights we've managed to protect.
For example, when arrested you get to be advised of your right to a lawyer, your right not to incriminate yourself, etc. If a detention isn't an arrest, you don't get mirandized. And if you're not free to leave, and the officer is questioning you, and you dont know your rights, what do you expect to happen?
To be on topic, detention is not enough to take a DNA sample (or fingerprints, etc). So I think they pretty damn well proves "detention" and "arrest" are not colloquially or legally the same.
Not at all. Not everyone who is arrested is booked.
Yes it is. "Being detained" is something they made up to get around your rights*. If you are not free to go, you are under arrest.
Just look at the definition. In a non legal sense, arrest means "1. To stop" That's exactly what detain(1. To keep from proceeding) means. Same thing.
In a legal sense, arrest means "2. To seize and hold under the authority of law." If a police officer has told you that you are not free to go, then he has siezed you under the authority of law.
Detention is arrest. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar who is trying to trick you out of your rights. That includes members of the SCOTUS.
*They do this trick a lot. You have legal rights granted under civil and criminal law... but they made up "administrative" law where you have no such protections. There are legal rights granted to civilians and to soldiers... but they made up "enemy combatants" who have no such protections. It's the oldest trick in the book, don't fall for it.
Yes, you might defend scoundrels. But you're defending them from even greater scoundrels. We have more to fear from our leaders than from our criminals.
I know they don't give a rats ass. I was only pointing out how stupid their claims that "nobody knows how the wheat got there" are. Even a first grader could figure this one out.
Someone should tell them that wheat pollen is distributed by the wind.
Re:Why aren't there more contributors to this proj
on
ReactOS 0.3.15 Released
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Who said anything about using only hobbyist labor? Those companies that use those tools would probably save themselves money in the long run if they commissioned an open replacement.
That's not a reason to run windows. That's a reason to promote open standards everywhere. Why should open source enthusiasts lift a finger to make it easier for industry to use closed systems? It would be far better to write an open replacement.
Re:Why aren't there more contributors to this proj
on
ReactOS 0.3.15 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Linux is fine for servers, portable devices, and embedded systems, but trying to stick it on the desktop is a foolish dream that has failed for over 10 years.
Linux has worked wonderfully on my desktop for over 10 years.
Oh, your users know. They know and they hate you for it. You only don't know that they know because there is no mechanism to petition for a redress of grievances.
We have two choices in society. Outright ban encryption and anyone caught with encrypted files is automatically guilty...or the keys are not considered self encrimination
There's a third choice. Respect the right of people to do whatever math they want, AND respect their right to be free from self incrimination. Imagine that, respecting the rights of the people. Bet you never thought of that.
If the FBI can prove to a judge's satisfaction that the safe is yours and contains illegal substances, you can be ordered to open it, and failure to comply is contempt of court.
This is probably factually true, but completely unreasonable. If you can prove that the safe contains illegal substances, you don't have to open the safe at all. You already have the proof you need.
If you need to open the safe to see what's in it, you didn't have enough proof to compel opening of the safe.
You don't have to provide the police a key to your house, unless they can convince a judge there is definitely something illegal hidden behind your front door.
This is the crucial issue, which you are glossing over. You DON'T have to provide the police a key to your house, even if they can convince a judge that there is definitely something illegal hidden behind your front door. If the cops show up to your house with a warrant, there's no requirement that you unlock the door for them. If you don't, they'll just break the door down.
What's happening here is quite different. The judge is compelling this man to assist the police who are trying to incriminate him. This is like issuing a search warrant where you are compelled to tell the police where your hiding places are.
If you believe copyright is oppressive it's a great reason. Copyright violates both my right to free speech and my property rights, all in the name of delivering profits to well connected private entities. A world where copyright could be enforced would be severely dystopian, with general purpose computers outlawed, and every interpersonal communication monitored. That's where this is going to end up, if copyright is not abolished.
Slashdot Mirror
He's not a dictator in any sense. A majority of Turks are very clearly supportive of him. There is very little doubt about this.
That's what happens when you ruthlessly suppress your opposition. How is the general public supposed to oppose their leader when all the bad information about that leader is hidden?
Replace the word 'detain' with the word 'arrest' in your post and it's exactly the same. Detention and arrest are identical.
The *dictionary* definitions of the terms (legal or otherwise) are totally irrelevant.
Whoever told you that is one of the liars to whom I referred. These are the games lawyers play to screw the rest of us. Just use a different name for the same thing and you don't have to apply all the rights we've managed to protect.
For example, when arrested you get to be advised of your right to a lawyer, your right not to incriminate yourself, etc. If a detention isn't an arrest, you don't get mirandized. And if you're not free to leave, and the officer is questioning you, and you dont know your rights, what do you expect to happen?
To be on topic, detention is not enough to take a DNA sample (or fingerprints, etc). So I think they pretty damn well proves "detention" and "arrest" are not colloquially or legally the same.
Not at all. Not everyone who is arrested is booked.
Yes it is. "Being detained" is something they made up to get around your rights*. If you are not free to go, you are under arrest.
Just look at the definition. In a non legal sense, arrest means "1. To stop" That's exactly what detain(1. To keep from proceeding) means. Same thing.
In a legal sense, arrest means "2. To seize and hold under the authority of law." If a police officer has told you that you are not free to go, then he has siezed you under the authority of law.
Detention is arrest. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar who is trying to trick you out of your rights. That includes members of the SCOTUS.
*They do this trick a lot. You have legal rights granted under civil and criminal law... but they made up "administrative" law where you have no such protections. There are legal rights granted to civilians and to soldiers... but they made up "enemy combatants" who have no such protections. It's the oldest trick in the book, don't fall for it.
Blind squirrel, broken clock, pick your cliche.
And yet they still have time to protest a harmless measurement and aren't able to do anything to protest actual privacy violations.
Great, where can I read the text of these NSLs? What, they haven't disobeyed the blatantly illegal gag order? Why the hell not?
If Google wishes to hold true to their motto, "Do No Evil", they can start by disobeying these orders. Compliance with unjust authority is evil.
Executive Orders.
Executive orders only apply to those in the employ of the executive. The rest of us are bound only by Congress.
If you're not going to need much math, you proabably don't need a CS degree either.
All of these issues are pretty much based on so much of the violence which the US schools have been faced for the last 20+ yrs.
Juvenile violent crime has been falling for the past 20 years. These issues must be based on something else.
Yes, you might defend scoundrels. But you're defending them from even greater scoundrels. We have more to fear from our leaders than from our criminals.
Where are these parents when it's time to protest actual privacy violations?
I know they don't give a rats ass. I was only pointing out how stupid their claims that "nobody knows how the wheat got there" are. Even a first grader could figure this one out.
Someone should tell them that wheat pollen is distributed by the wind.
Who said anything about using only hobbyist labor? Those companies that use those tools would probably save themselves money in the long run if they commissioned an open replacement.
That's not a reason to run windows. That's a reason to promote open standards everywhere. Why should open source enthusiasts lift a finger to make it easier for industry to use closed systems? It would be far better to write an open replacement.
Linux is fine for servers, portable devices, and embedded systems, but trying to stick it on the desktop is a foolish dream that has failed for over 10 years.
Linux has worked wonderfully on my desktop for over 10 years.
Oh, your users know. They know and they hate you for it. You only don't know that they know because there is no mechanism to petition for a redress of grievances.
We have two choices in society. Outright ban encryption and anyone caught with encrypted files is automatically guilty...or the keys are not considered self encrimination
There's a third choice. Respect the right of people to do whatever math they want, AND respect their right to be free from self incrimination. Imagine that, respecting the rights of the people. Bet you never thought of that.
If the FBI can prove to a judge's satisfaction that the safe is yours and contains illegal substances, you can be ordered to open it, and failure to comply is contempt of court.
This is probably factually true, but completely unreasonable. If you can prove that the safe contains illegal substances, you don't have to open the safe at all. You already have the proof you need.
If you need to open the safe to see what's in it, you didn't have enough proof to compel opening of the safe.
You don't have to provide the police a key to your house, unless they can convince a judge there is definitely something illegal hidden behind your front door.
This is the crucial issue, which you are glossing over. You DON'T have to provide the police a key to your house, even if they can convince a judge that there is definitely something illegal hidden behind your front door. If the cops show up to your house with a warrant, there's no requirement that you unlock the door for them. If you don't, they'll just break the door down.
What's happening here is quite different. The judge is compelling this man to assist the police who are trying to incriminate him. This is like issuing a search warrant where you are compelled to tell the police where your hiding places are.
If you believe copyright is oppressive it's a great reason. Copyright violates both my right to free speech and my property rights, all in the name of delivering profits to well connected private entities. A world where copyright could be enforced would be severely dystopian, with general purpose computers outlawed, and every interpersonal communication monitored. That's where this is going to end up, if copyright is not abolished.
Darknets. Tor, Freenet, Waste, Retroshare. Something along those lines.
So Einstein was a dumbass until 1905, when suddenly he became a genius?