They were already divorced. Spousal privilege can't be invoked when the communication was part of a crime. It also can't be invoked when it's part of a spouse-defendant when they use it as part of their defense (not sure if this applies to this particular case).
I think a clever ambulance chaser could probably initiate a lawsuit on her behalf, against the ex, claiming that he couldn't have known that whatever was being protected with that password was criminal evidence, and thus had no right to expose said password to someone else's property.
If a neighbor gives you a key to their house to let their pets out when they leave town, do you have a right to turn that key over to the cops if they claim your neighbor committed a crime, but present no warrant or evidence?
If she didn't want her traitorous fuck ex to give up her password, perhaps she shouldn't have committed a crime that she ultimately pleaded guilty to. There's no honor among thieves, apparently including ex-spouse thieves too.
Or, you know, make sure you change the password to one your now ex-husband doesn't know.
My point being that anyone who claims the purpose or net result of 'religion' is naturally harmful is either a liar or a fool, because religion is what feeds and shelters a vast majority of homeless people being fed and sheltered. Not trying to disparage atheists at all, although after re-reading my post I can understand where one might see that implication. Mea culpa.
I'll agree that's a good ol' fashioned dick move; when it comes to taking care of the less fortunate, there shouldn't be such a thing as 'competition,' only co-operation.
I bit on the Jackson bros reference because I was trying to figure out what the AC who made the Matrix joke was talking about when he said "the Jackson brothers".
1) Not an AC.
B) Couldn't remember who came up with that movie, all I knew is it was some set of brothers, and Jackson is the first name that popped in my head. Could I have verified that? Yea, but that would require more effort than I feel a bad movie pun would warrant.
Last month my electric bill was 80 or so dollars. That's heating a house and running the tv, computers etc. 30 days last month means it was less than $3 a day.
A) what's your square footage, and are we talking shared wall dwelling or an actual house?
B) "less than $3 a day" is still probably more than $5 over three days.
"making copies can take time. drives are pretty large today and it can take a while to zip up your media"
I don't much care, I'd still prefer to wait instead of the hassle that would be caused by taking all the devices away for god knows how long.
Yea, but I think we all know that's not how it would go down:
You: "So, can I have my stuff back? My flight leaves in, like, 20 minutes."
TSA: "Oh yea, Jim's processing it now, shouldn't be more than 5 or 10 minutes."
90 minutes later
You: "OK, well, I already missed my flight, where's my stuff?"
TSA: "Oh, hey, yea, apparently we've decided to hold it indefinitely for further investigation. Now please clear space for the other victims, er, I mean, travelers, before I'm 'forced' to taze your ass."
To conflate the acts of 9/11 with "reasonable demands" is pur and utter bullshit.
Pretty sure OP isn't doing that; rather, he's pointing out how the government conflates reasonable demands with the acts of 9/11; in other words, not only is terrorism considered terrorism, but apparently so is protesting, or looking funny, or anything else the feds decide to arbitrarily label as suspicious.
Did you just mention "Rush" that senile, racist, sexist?
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, you know.
Your opinion is completely irrelevant go back to your confederate flag draped tent...
You know the difference between you and whoever you're attacking? All they did was mention the name of someone who, occasionally, gets one right; All you've done is attack them and imply that they're racists because they mentioned the name of someone you've obviously decided to form a personal vendetta against.
So, who's the irrelevant one here? Not the guy talking about Rush - at least he managed to stay on topic.
Well hey, you're showing humility, which already puts you miles ahead of the vast majority of Internet Tough Guys.
I admit, I can get pretty wound up in these threads myself, but part of the reason I like Slashdot is that this crowd is usually pretty good at setting aside emotion and basing arguments on logic. Usually.
We lose that aspect of the community, and this might as well be the comments page for Yahoo! News.
TL;DR - no worries, mate - we all have sacred cows.
It means that, when the Oracle told Neo, "there is no spoon," she was more correct than neither she nor the Jackson brothers could have possibly imagined.
You also might want to check with the TX court system to see if your ticket is even still on their books; there's a fair chance it's been expunged from your record, which would mean that the website is not only defaming your character, they're using libel to do it.
Worst case scenario, they ignore you. Best case, you end up turning the tables and force them to pay you for removing the info. And probably your lawyer, too.
you took it personally for reasons only you could know.
I took it personally because you said "Imagine this guy is a commercial airline pilot." (emphasis mine).
And? Are you trying to say that the idea of an airline pilot who doesn't know everything about flying the plane before take-off isn't a terrifying proposition? Because I would disagree with that.
Of course piloting an airplane for the first time carries more risk,
Which is probably why professional pilots RTFM and know what they're up against before hopping into the cockpit and putting thousands of lives at risk. Granted, drivers are slightly less risky if only by virtue of the fact that they're not cruising 30,000 feet above populated areas, but that's no excuse for not knowing the machine before taking it out on a public road. "It was my first time driving this car" doesn't fare well as a legal defense.
You taking your eyes off the road to fiddle with a GPS could, at most, kill the handful of people around you
Which is why I used the voice control feature until it proved useless and then had the passenger enter it manually. I stated that very clearly in my original post. My eyes were on the road the whole time.
And I'm certain you never, ever deviate from that scenario./sarc.
Anyway, you're not the only person who fiddles with their electronic toys while driving, and not everyone uses or has the option to use voice control. Get over yourself, not everything is about you.
You need to 'chill out' on the emotional responses. FYI, that wasn't an insult
It was an insult.
No, this is an insult: You're such a dumb fuck that you have to look into a mirror just to see if your eyes are open.
See? Pretty obvious that statement is meant to be insulting. My previous statement would only be an insult to a narcissist who thinks everything someone says to them is about them.
Your statement may have been directed at the rest of the Slashdot community instead of directed toward me, but the content was insulting to me.
Aww, well, since your wittle feewings got hurt, let me pull out my 3 micron violin and play the world's saddest song, just for you.
If you didn't intend on a little bit of insult, you would have said something like "Imagine this approach to piloting a commercial flight".
Well thanks there, Captain Proper English, don't know what the world would do if you weren't around to tell us what we should have said.
God help you learn to just read what's written and not automatically infer that it's all about you.
Yes it is subtle and I didn't take a huge offense since it was far from the worst thing someone has said about me, but I felt it was worth calling you out on.
Yea, no, it wasn't, and by being a little whiny bitch about it, you're really making me rethink my original decision to not call you an narcissistic douche-nozzle.
Slashdot Mirror
They were already divorced. Spousal privilege can't be invoked when the communication was part of a crime. It also can't be invoked when it's part of a spouse-defendant when they use it as part of their defense (not sure if this applies to this particular case).
I think a clever ambulance chaser could probably initiate a lawsuit on her behalf, against the ex, claiming that he couldn't have known that whatever was being protected with that password was criminal evidence, and thus had no right to expose said password to someone else's property.
If a neighbor gives you a key to their house to let their pets out when they leave town, do you have a right to turn that key over to the cops if they claim your neighbor committed a crime, but present no warrant or evidence?
If she didn't want her traitorous fuck ex to give up her password, perhaps she shouldn't have committed a crime that she ultimately pleaded guilty to. There's no honor among thieves, apparently including ex-spouse thieves too.
Or, you know, make sure you change the password to one your now ex-husband doesn't know.
broken digital clocks are never right.
Pedant is being pedantic.
Or trying to be funny; can't really tell.
My point being that anyone who claims the purpose or net result of 'religion' is naturally harmful is either a liar or a fool, because religion is what feeds and shelters a vast majority of homeless people being fed and sheltered. Not trying to disparage atheists at all, although after re-reading my post I can understand where one might see that implication. Mea culpa.
There may be religious people in the organisation, but it's not a religious organisation. It's not always the same the other way around: two atheist groups were prevented from helping out in religious soup kitchens this year.
I'll agree that's a good ol' fashioned dick move; when it comes to taking care of the less fortunate, there shouldn't be such a thing as 'competition,' only co-operation.
I bit on the Jackson bros reference because I was trying to figure out what the AC who made the Matrix joke was talking about when he said "the Jackson brothers".
1) Not an AC.
B) Couldn't remember who came up with that movie, all I knew is it was some set of brothers, and Jackson is the first name that popped in my head. Could I have verified that? Yea, but that would require more effort than I feel a bad movie pun would warrant.
Last month my electric bill was 80 or so dollars. That's heating a house and running the tv, computers etc. 30 days last month means it was less than $3 a day.
A) what's your square footage, and are we talking shared wall dwelling or an actual house?
B) "less than $3 a day" is still probably more than $5 over three days.
"making copies can take time. drives are pretty large today and it can take a while to zip up your media"
I don't much care, I'd still prefer to wait instead of the hassle that would be caused by taking all the devices away for god knows how long.
Yea, but I think we all know that's not how it would go down:
You: "So, can I have my stuff back? My flight leaves in, like, 20 minutes."
TSA: "Oh yea, Jim's processing it now, shouldn't be more than 5 or 10 minutes."
90 minutes later
You: "OK, well, I already missed my flight, where's my stuff?"
TSA: "Oh, hey, yea, apparently we've decided to hold it indefinitely for further investigation. Now please clear space for the other victims, er, I mean, travelers, before I'm 'forced' to taze your ass."
To conflate the acts of 9/11 with "reasonable demands" is pur and utter bullshit.
Pretty sure OP isn't doing that; rather, he's pointing out how the government conflates reasonable demands with the acts of 9/11; in other words, not only is terrorism considered terrorism, but apparently so is protesting, or looking funny, or anything else the feds decide to arbitrarily label as suspicious.
He's 100% right about that, too.
"I cannot give out that information as it would pose a risk to national security."
Hey, it works for them, right?
It may be a crime, but what is the punishment? If there is no/little penalty, then don't comply.
And if they decide to hold you in contempt, indefinitely, until you surrender the password?
Expressing her 5th Amendment right, apparently.
Stand your ground laws don't apply to non-humans.
Not right now, maybe, but hey - somebody's gotta set the precedent, right?
Did you just mention "Rush" that senile, racist, sexist?
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, you know.
Your opinion is completely irrelevant go back to your confederate flag draped tent...
You know the difference between you and whoever you're attacking? All they did was mention the name of someone who, occasionally, gets one right; All you've done is attack them and imply that they're racists because they mentioned the name of someone you've obviously decided to form a personal vendetta against.
So, who's the irrelevant one here? Not the guy talking about Rush - at least he managed to stay on topic.
the Jackson brothers
Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, Marlon, and Michael?
Nah - Andy, Hugh, and Bob.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
The first Matrix was damn good, the second one was cheesy, and the third one was just a big steaming pile. IMO.
Anne McCaffrey.
I'd happily live on Pern, Thread and all.
... and I've got my immigration application signed and ready to send out*, just in case the independence movement actually succeeds :)
*Emigrating to Scotland, not from.
except it's that bald kid who tells Neo that, not the Oracle
Damn, my knowledge of decade-old, super cheesy sci-fi is flawed!
I shall hang my head in shame.
Well hey, you're showing humility, which already puts you miles ahead of the vast majority of Internet Tough Guys.
I admit, I can get pretty wound up in these threads myself, but part of the reason I like Slashdot is that this crowd is usually pretty good at setting aside emotion and basing arguments on logic. Usually.
We lose that aspect of the community, and this might as well be the comments page for Yahoo! News.
TL;DR - no worries, mate - we all have sacred cows.
It's hologram-projecting robot turtles all the way down, man.
Ah, much better.
It means that, when the Oracle told Neo, "there is no spoon," she was more correct than neither she nor the Jackson brothers could have possibly imagined.
I still think you should send them a DMCA letter.
You also might want to check with the TX court system to see if your ticket is even still on their books; there's a fair chance it's been expunged from your record, which would mean that the website is not only defaming your character, they're using libel to do it.
Worst case scenario, they ignore you. Best case, you end up turning the tables and force them to pay you for removing the info. And probably your lawyer, too.
Just wait; once we get the Slingatron built and working, we'll just toss all that garbage into the sun.
Er, well, towards it.
I took it personally because you said "Imagine this guy is a commercial airline pilot." (emphasis mine).
And? Are you trying to say that the idea of an airline pilot who doesn't know everything about flying the plane before take-off isn't a terrifying proposition? Because I would disagree with that.
Of course piloting an airplane for the first time carries more risk,
Which is probably why professional pilots RTFM and know what they're up against before hopping into the cockpit and putting thousands of lives at risk. Granted, drivers are slightly less risky if only by virtue of the fact that they're not cruising 30,000 feet above populated areas, but that's no excuse for not knowing the machine before taking it out on a public road. "It was my first time driving this car" doesn't fare well as a legal defense.
Which is why I used the voice control feature until it proved useless and then had the passenger enter it manually. I stated that very clearly in my original post. My eyes were on the road the whole time.
And I'm certain you never, ever deviate from that scenario. /sarc.
Anyway, you're not the only person who fiddles with their electronic toys while driving, and not everyone uses or has the option to use voice control. Get over yourself, not everything is about you.
It was an insult.
No, this is an insult: You're such a dumb fuck that you have to look into a mirror just to see if your eyes are open.
See? Pretty obvious that statement is meant to be insulting. My previous statement would only be an insult to a narcissist who thinks everything someone says to them is about them.
Your statement may have been directed at the rest of the Slashdot community instead of directed toward me, but the content was insulting to me.
Aww, well, since your wittle feewings got hurt, let me pull out my 3 micron violin and play the world's saddest song, just for you.
If you didn't intend on a little bit of insult, you would have said something like "Imagine this approach to piloting a commercial flight".
Well thanks there, Captain Proper English, don't know what the world would do if you weren't around to tell us what we should have said.
God help you learn to just read what's written and not automatically infer that it's all about you.
Yes it is subtle and I didn't take a huge offense since it was far from the worst thing someone has said about me, but I felt it was worth calling you out on.
Yea, no, it wasn't, and by being a little whiny bitch about it, you're really making me rethink my original decision to not call you an narcissistic douche-nozzle.
BTW, that last sentence? THAT is an insult.
Wow, I'd be surprised if any "business" like that hasn't been sued into oblivion for defamation.
Posting a factual public record is one thing; using it as a means of extortion is another all-together. How do they get away with this stuff?
Don't suppose you've tried issuing a DMCA takedown notice in regards to their unlicensed use of your image?
Someone how mugshot websites are able to get away with it.
What mugshot website lets/makes people pay to remove their pictures?
The only one I know of is the one my county runs, and they don't accept bribes.
Well, not for taking your picture off the website, anyway.