'The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants told investors that Nokia's conversion to a Windows platform would halt its deteriorating position in the smartphone market,'
Of course, all my words are based on the assumption that the Constitution still matters, and is actually followed by law enforcement, which we all know damn good and well isn't the case.
That's what I get for listening to my 9th grade Civics teacher...
Of course, all my words are based on the assumption that the Constitution still matters, and is actually followed by law enforcement, which we all know damn good and well isn't the case.
That doesn't help your case, you know. In fact, all it does is show that not only do you have no idea what you're talking about, but that you apparently lack the capacity to educate yourself.
If he really wanted to attack Iraq, he picked probably the worst justification possible. Here was a country that was flagrantly violating a cease-fire that they signed with the US, and reason he picks is "pre-emptive strike"?
Clarification: phantom "slam-dunk" WMD's were the justification for the pre-emptive strike.
That said, don't you see how a Russian threat against NATO is even dumber?
IMO, all saber rattling and war is equally stupid, regardless of who originates it.
I can't wait for you to explain me what exactly were strikes against Iraq and Afghanistan about.
I'm sorry - I didn't realize that Afghanistan or Iraq were part of Russia's sovereign territory.
They are sovereign nations by their own right. Surely you're not so naive as to think that the first round of bombings weren't targeted at defensive installations, are you?
If the missile is designed to shoot down attacking missiles or airplanes and has no offensive capability, it is defensive in nature.
So... shooting down airplanes != "offensive capability?" Really dude? Really?
Damn if that's not some straight up, dumb-ass shit right there...
We expect them to be able to operate a motor vehicle safely and keep it in good repair
Because if they don't someone could get killed; who's going to die if my grandpa doesn't set up a WEP key?
compute their taxes,
Because someone has to pay for the government to operate. For the record, there's no law that says you have to "compute [your] taxes" - you are more than welcome to send the IRS a check for however much you like. Just know if the amount you send isn't sufficient, you will be held accountable.
maintain their home
Again, because if you don't someone could get killed.
keep themselves and their family and pets in good health
Uh, yea, obviously not a law; as an example, this one is absolutely stupid.
Judging by how the FBI handled the Pittsburgh bomb threats, I do not give much credit to their ability to "fully" investigate anything online. The FBI's approach to computers is to lobby for backdoors, then point to examples where a lack of a backdoor impeded their investigation when they do not get their way.
Word.
The only thing the FBI seems to know how to do correctly is pose for photo ops.
One would think that... then again, considering that a person can be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of "resisting arrest" without any other charge, I have my doubts about these 'higher standards' of which you speak...
So, XO Communications owned the building, and the server, and the data on the server?
I ask, because if they only own the building the server was in then technically they are not the property owner - note that, according to your post, the FBI warrant wasn't to search the building, it was to search a specific piece of equipment in the building.
What you propose is akin to the cops asking your landlord if they can search your apartment - it doesn't matter that the landlord owns the building, so long as you pay your rent it's still your apartment, and thus you are the person who must be notified of the search. There are exceptions to that rule, but most-if-not-all are emergency based and would not apply in this situation.
And as for people who run unlocked wireless routers and let anybody in the neighborhood utilize their bandwidth, I have zero sympathy.
Right, because we should expect 100% of the US population to understand network security and know how to properly secure a wifi router. Makes perfect sense!
I don't think the framers of the constitution could possibly conceive weapons of mass destruction like nukes and biological weapons.
Nukes, perhaps not, but biological warfare has been around since party A realized that party B lacked immunity to certain diseases. Hell, in 1710 the Russian Army was using catapults to fling the bodies of bubonic plague victims within the wall of cities they held under siege.
I for one don't want you or anyone you know owning such weapons, ICBMs, ballistic missiles, etc.
Quick note: ICBM (Inter Continental Ballistic Missile) and "ballistic missile" are essentially the same thing. Moving on...
I agree; however, in my case, "anyone you know" includes the government.
How are the People supposed to protect ourselves from tyrannical authoritarianism, when the tyrannical authoritarians get to decide who gets which destructive powers?
...then we would not have to worry about it now as that constitution would no longer exist as the US would have been taken over by the first government that made such weapons.
Uh... you don't follow politics much, do you? I ask because that nightmare scenario you mention there, that the Constitution would "no longer exist" if the US were "taken over by the first government that made such weapons?" Yea, about that...
How is this a "coverup"? There was a properly adjudicated warrant to seize the server in the first place (whether or not it was over-broad, and whether or not someone agrees with the reasoning). Law enforcement is not obligated to make public announcements — and this story was covered widely.
First, according to TFA:
Neither May First/People Link or Riseup was not notified that the server was being replaced. It was never notified that the server was taken in the first place.
In order for a warrant to be "properly adjudicated," it is required that the law enforcement agency serve the warrant to the property owner. By not notifying the property owner of the warrant, they violated the 4th Amendment.
The link to the warrant is down, but if the scope is beyond the specific "place to be searched, and property to be seized" then it, again, was not a legal warrant as per the Fourth Amendment.
For the people saying this is a Fourth Amendment violation, do people really think the FBI just routinely rolls onto private property without a legal justification for doing so?
The FBI has a long history of blatant violation of civil rights, as well as literally making criminals for the sake of "busting" them, thus justifying their existence (which, in government doublespeak, translates to "budget"). That said, it would be more surprising to me to find out that the legal rights of the property owner were honored.
Again, saying "we weren't notified of the server's seizure or return" has nothing to do with the legality of either action.
Again, for a warrant to be legal, it has to be served to the property owner (i.e., they must be made aware that their property is to be searched, and what property is to be seized). So actually, it has everything to do with the legality of the action.
In the first discussion, many were lamenting the possibility that the server may not be returned for months, if ever; now it's been returned (probably after having its drive(s) imaged) in a timely fashion and that's a bad thing, too? The issue of notification or announcement is irrelevant to the law.
Considering the history of the FBI, as well as recently passed legislation that greatly (and unconstitutionally) expands the power of federal agencies, I think a little paranoia is appropriate. If the feds had honorable intentions, why wouldn't they notify the property owners? What possible justification would they have for putting the server back in place without telling anyone, if not for nefarious purposes?
What I would be concerned about is if the FBI entered private property without permission and without a legal basis — for example, via continuing coverage by one or more warrants to enter the property. Notice that is not what is being alleged here, just what some people are assuming...
Trespassing is illegal; any evidence gained illegally cannot be admitted in court; therefore, if the FBI did indeed trespass, then any case they may have had is now dead by their own hand.
Of course, all my words are based on the assumption that the Constitution still matters, and is actually followed by law enforcement, which we all know damn good and well isn't the case.
Thank you for offering a rational, logical response, it's quite refreshing.
Another issue along the lines of legality would be that certain parts of the GiMP license could be an issue for certain commercial business, although I admit I have not read through it myself.
BTW, The grammar nazi in me wants to say one thing: English is a proper noun, and thus should be capitalized.
Slashdot Mirror
You're my boy, Bloo!
And you know this how?
He probably RTFS:
'The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants told investors that Nokia's conversion to a Windows platform would halt its deteriorating position in the smartphone market,'
Question: Who makes up these definitions, and which side do they work for, the people or the police?
Answer that honestly, and you can see how slippery the slope really is.
Of course, all my words are based on the assumption that the Constitution still matters, and is actually followed by law enforcement, which we all know damn good and well isn't the case.
That's what I get for listening to my 9th grade Civics teacher...
Of course, all my words are based on the assumption that the Constitution still matters, and is actually followed by law enforcement, which we all know damn good and well isn't the case.
That doesn't help your case, you know. In fact, all it does is show that not only do you have no idea what you're talking about, but that you apparently lack the capacity to educate yourself.
If he really wanted to attack Iraq, he picked probably the worst justification possible. Here was a country that was flagrantly violating a cease-fire that they signed with the US, and reason he picks is "pre-emptive strike"?
Clarification: phantom "slam-dunk" WMD's were the justification for the pre-emptive strike.
That said, don't you see how a Russian threat against NATO is even dumber?
IMO, all saber rattling and war is equally stupid, regardless of who originates it.
I can't wait for you to explain me what exactly were strikes against Iraq and Afghanistan about.
I'm sorry - I didn't realize that Afghanistan or Iraq were part of Russia's sovereign territory.
They are sovereign nations by their own right. Surely you're not so naive as to think that the first round of bombings weren't targeted at defensive installations, are you?
If the missile is designed to shoot down attacking missiles or airplanes and has no offensive capability, it is defensive in nature.
So... shooting down airplanes != "offensive capability?" Really dude? Really?
Damn if that's not some straight up, dumb-ass shit right there...
See what I did there?
Bought into anti-US propaganda?
Seriously - you can't see the difference between provoking someone and actually attacking them?
Right, because America has an exclusive right to the concept of "pre-emptive strike."
We expect them to be able to operate a motor vehicle safely and keep it in good repair
Because if they don't someone could get killed; who's going to die if my grandpa doesn't set up a WEP key?
compute their taxes,
Because someone has to pay for the government to operate. For the record, there's no law that says you have to "compute [your] taxes" - you are more than welcome to send the IRS a check for however much you like. Just know if the amount you send isn't sufficient, you will be held accountable.
maintain their home
Again, because if you don't someone could get killed.
keep themselves and their family and pets in good health
Uh, yea, obviously not a law; as an example, this one is absolutely stupid.
Judging by how the FBI handled the Pittsburgh bomb threats, I do not give much credit to their ability to "fully" investigate anything online. The FBI's approach to computers is to lobby for backdoors, then point to examples where a lack of a backdoor impeded their investigation when they do not get their way.
Word.
The only thing the FBI seems to know how to do correctly is pose for photo ops.
One would think that... then again, considering that a person can be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of "resisting arrest" without any other charge, I have my doubts about these 'higher standards' of which you speak...
I think so, but then again I never said it wouldn't.
Was merely pointing out that a precedent-setting decision in civil court doesn't apply to criminal matters, and vice versa.
No shit, Sherlock.
So, XO Communications owned the building, and the server, and the data on the server?
I ask, because if they only own the building the server was in then technically they are not the property owner - note that, according to your post, the FBI warrant wasn't to search the building, it was to search a specific piece of equipment in the building.
What you propose is akin to the cops asking your landlord if they can search your apartment - it doesn't matter that the landlord owns the building, so long as you pay your rent it's still your apartment, and thus you are the person who must be notified of the search. There are exceptions to that rule, but most-if-not-all are emergency based and would not apply in this situation.
Right, because we should expect 100% of the US population to understand network security and know how to properly secure a wifi router. Makes perfect sense!
Also, this.
Those are criminal infractions; 'piracy' is technically a civil matter.
I want to strangle some of these bean counters.
We don't need another MMO to replicate Skyrim--We just need MULTIPLAYER.
(and by multiplayer, I mean IP to IP connections that don't rely on your fucking servers)
In the name of all that's holy, THIS!
Fetch me my LANsword, Ho!
I don't think the framers of the constitution could possibly conceive weapons of mass destruction like nukes and biological weapons.
Nukes, perhaps not, but biological warfare has been around since party A realized that party B lacked immunity to certain diseases. Hell, in 1710 the Russian Army was using catapults to fling the bodies of bubonic plague victims within the wall of cities they held under siege.
I for one don't want you or anyone you know owning such weapons, ICBMs, ballistic missiles, etc.
Quick note: ICBM (Inter Continental Ballistic Missile) and "ballistic missile" are essentially the same thing. Moving on...
I agree; however, in my case, "anyone you know" includes the government.
How are the People supposed to protect ourselves from tyrannical authoritarianism, when the tyrannical authoritarians get to decide who gets which destructive powers?
...then we would not have to worry about it now as that constitution would no longer exist as the US would have been taken over by the first government that made such weapons.
Uh... you don't follow politics much, do you? I ask because that nightmare scenario you mention there, that the Constitution would "no longer exist" if the US were "taken over by the first government that made such weapons?" Yea, about that...
MMO's aren't about content, they're about keeping you paying that $15 a month--chasing something you can never catch.
Been there, done that.
I thought I saw it coming... 'til I took an arrow in the knee.
How is this a "coverup"? There was a properly adjudicated warrant to seize the server in the first place (whether or not it was over-broad, and whether or not someone agrees with the reasoning). Law enforcement is not obligated to make public announcements — and this story was covered widely.
First, according to TFA:
In order for a warrant to be "properly adjudicated," it is required that the law enforcement agency serve the warrant to the property owner. By not notifying the property owner of the warrant, they violated the 4th Amendment.
The link to the warrant is down, but if the scope is beyond the specific "place to be searched, and property to be seized" then it, again, was not a legal warrant as per the Fourth Amendment.
For the people saying this is a Fourth Amendment violation, do people really think the FBI just routinely rolls onto private property without a legal justification for doing so?
The FBI has a long history of blatant violation of civil rights, as well as literally making criminals for the sake of "busting" them, thus justifying their existence (which, in government doublespeak, translates to "budget"). That said, it would be more surprising to me to find out that the legal rights of the property owner were honored.
Again, saying "we weren't notified of the server's seizure or return" has nothing to do with the legality of either action.
Again, for a warrant to be legal, it has to be served to the property owner (i.e., they must be made aware that their property is to be searched, and what property is to be seized). So actually, it has everything to do with the legality of the action.
In the first discussion, many were lamenting the possibility that the server may not be returned for months, if ever; now it's been returned (probably after having its drive(s) imaged) in a timely fashion and that's a bad thing, too? The issue of notification or announcement is irrelevant to the law.
Considering the history of the FBI, as well as recently passed legislation that greatly (and unconstitutionally) expands the power of federal agencies, I think a little paranoia is appropriate. If the feds had honorable intentions, why wouldn't they notify the property owners? What possible justification would they have for putting the server back in place without telling anyone, if not for nefarious purposes?
What I would be concerned about is if the FBI entered private property without permission and without a legal basis — for example, via continuing coverage by one or more warrants to enter the property. Notice that is not what is being alleged here, just what some people are assuming...
Trespassing is illegal; any evidence gained illegally cannot be admitted in court; therefore, if the FBI did indeed trespass, then any case they may have had is now dead by their own hand.
Of course, all my words are based on the assumption that the Constitution still matters, and is actually followed by law enforcement, which we all know damn good and well isn't the case.
I know people here like to cast "The Man" in the worst possible light,
The feds don't need our help in that, they do a fine job all on their own
Thank you for offering a rational, logical response, it's quite refreshing.
Another issue along the lines of legality would be that certain parts of the GiMP license could be an issue for certain commercial business, although I admit I have not read through it myself.
BTW, The grammar nazi in me wants to say one thing: English is a proper noun, and thus should be capitalized.