...instead vote Libertarian - as close to Jeffersonian ideals as you're likely to find in the modern world. The L Party's views can be succinctly defined as "put the 9th and 10th Amendments above all else".
Try as you revisionists might to paint Thomas Jefferson as your patron saint, I'm pretty sure he would never have put the 9th or 10th Amendment above the 1st or 4th.
Show of hands here, who could write a communication program in an hour that would defeat all attempts at decryption if the two "terrorists" exchanged the program in person?...Maybe someone who can needs to testify to Congress as a software/communications expert and knock some sense into them.
You assume Congress gives a damn about terrorists in the first place. Remember that whole Iraq war that was supposed to be about getting terrorists? How about the USA PATRIOT act and those national security letters that were supposed to only be used against terrorism suspects but the DoJ itself has had to admit are almost always used against non-terrorism suspects? How about raids on anti-war groups? Warrantless wiretaps, anyone? They want the right to spy on ordinary Americans, not on the terrorists. Terrorism is just the new Communism.
Next time, could you just post the entire article so that we don't have to read multiple posts by people who choose to quote only one line at a time while adding no additional value?
Clearly, someone thought it had value. It got modded to (Score:3, Interesting).
In 1974, a young newcomer to the Royal Society named Stephen Hawking predicted that black holes emit Hawking Radiation.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that in 1974 a young newcomer named Stephen Hawking predicted that black holes emit a certain kind of radiation, and somebody later named in Hawking Radiation.
That sounds incredibly 1984 and I'm glad that the media of today has done away with such a draconian idea. Part of the beauty of a free market in information is that opposing viewpoints don't get smothered by the popular madness of the era...
Since when is making shit up that happens to be false an opposing viewpoint? I hope you realize you're sounding a lot more 1984 than what you're criticizing.
Rottenapples. Wow. I actually read a few pages. I had to force myself to keep reading after the first page - unnecessary bold print, highlighted print, unnecessary capitalizations - on and on.
Unnecessary capitalizations? Wow, that sure SOUNDS LIKE the five or SIX words I MIGHT have recently seen unnecessarily in someone's post, which MIGHT be higher up in the current thread...
Hmmmm. Are you Canadian, Tom? Not being sarcastic, really, I'm asking an honest question.
It SOUNDS LIKE you are trying to apply US law to a Canadian case.
Really?? Because it sounds to me a lot like he's trying to apply English common law to a Canadian case. Which is, of course, appropriate because all English colonies inherited the English common law and most of them chose to preserve it upon independence. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is definitely a common law standard; I challenge you to show me where the words "beyond a reasonable doubt" appear in the US constitution.
Fact is, I'm not *real* sure about the US. I heard recently that Florida can have non-capital criminal courts with only SIX jurors. Never did check it out - it's just filed away as a curiosity that I should check out.
That's not fundamentally different from a jury of twelve. As long as it's generally regarded as enough people to fairly determine guilt, and it's the same number for all defendants, as specified in local law, then it preserves due process.
Going once, going twice...Sold!! to the man with the boring slashdot nick!
Congratulations, your two cents has just bought the right not to be sued by SCO!
'This asset sale is an important step forward in ensuring business continuity for our customers around the world,' said Ken Nielsen, SCO chief financial officer, in a statement.
In other news, SCO still has customers. Not only that, customers around the world. I think that's the real story here.
18 USC 871, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully make a true threat to injure or kill the President of the United States.
Yeah, that too. Probably a better argument than my own, given that criminal law has almost entirely been moved from common law to statutory law.
Still, it is a rather ridiculous thing to do especially in light of far more serious threats which need to be pursued.
Possibly. We don't know in great detail what was in the email and what the sequence of events was. Did they know it was a drunken message at the time they decided to ban him? The email of a drunk could probably be easily mistaken for the email of a crazy person, and a majority of the people who've carried out attempts to harm or kill a sitting US President were, to use a clinical term, crazy people.
This is exactly the same thing as if you yelled over the fence to your neighbor, "Hey Bob, your wife's a whore!" and then got all upset that your "freedom of speech" was trampled when he replied "I don't want you coming into my house anymore!".
This is by far the most insightful analysis of the situation I've seen in this thread.
I have a single standard for shitty use of pseudo-olde English. I hold you and anyone else who uses "thou" when only "thy" would work in equal contempt.
So what? I mean... so what? A lot of Americans feel the same way and we don't have to be drunk to say it... free speech and all that. Or do we believe that people in other countries shouldn't be able to express negative opinions about our leaders? What kind of example are we trying to set here?
Maybe we believe people in any country shouldn't be allowed to threaten our leaders. See the police statement in TFA, and also here. I normally take police statements with a grain of salt, but am more apt to trust them than a drunken teenage attention-whore running to a tabloid to tell his story.
Low hanging fruit, I guess. As if a drunken teenager's ramblings constituted some credible threat against the President.
Any threat against the President should be treated as a credible threat against the President.
Besides, I'm a little confused on how a kid gets banned from the United States forever for performing an action that isn't illegal in this country, probably isn't illegal in his, and should have been entirely beneath law enforcement's radar anyway?
Threatening the head of state is probably in illegal in every country.
I'm trying to figure out how "prick" is obscenity, so much so to get you banned from the United States?
The only thing to figure out is how/. got such a shitty summary of the matter. According to police he was threatening the president. That's a crime, and totally different from calling someone a prick.
More importantly, according to the link you posted: "Bedfordshire police, who then visited Luke, said the e-mail was full of abusive and threatening language." Threatening the president is a crime. Threatening anyone with bodily harm has been a crime for centuries under English common law. Unless the police are lying, there's no free speech issue here.
Slashdot Mirror
...instead vote Libertarian - as close to Jeffersonian ideals as you're likely to find in the modern world. The L Party's views can be succinctly defined as "put the 9th and 10th Amendments above all else".
Try as you revisionists might to paint Thomas Jefferson as your patron saint, I'm pretty sure he would never have put the 9th or 10th Amendment above the 1st or 4th.
Show of hands here, who could write a communication program in an hour that would defeat all attempts at decryption if the two "terrorists" exchanged the program in person?...Maybe someone who can needs to testify to Congress as a software/communications expert and knock some sense into them.
You assume Congress gives a damn about terrorists in the first place. Remember that whole Iraq war that was supposed to be about getting terrorists? How about the USA PATRIOT act and those national security letters that were supposed to only be used against terrorism suspects but the DoJ itself has had to admit are almost always used against non-terrorism suspects? How about raids on anti-war groups? Warrantless wiretaps, anyone? They want the right to spy on ordinary Americans, not on the terrorists. Terrorism is just the new Communism.
Next time, could you just post the entire article so that we don't have to read multiple posts by people who choose to quote only one line at a time while adding no additional value?
Clearly, someone thought it had value. It got modded to (Score:3, Interesting).
I wanted to see a photograph of an atom.
The good news is I went and found it, the bad news is it's probably not as cool as I'd hoped...
Well, what did you expect a photograph of an atom to look like?
Rather than show you my resume, I'll merely point out that Proof-by-ad-hominem is not a valid method of proof.
What about proof by parody?
...and somebody later named in Hawking Radiation.
"named it", rather. Way to shoot my own comment in the foot.
In 1974, a young newcomer to the Royal Society named Stephen Hawking predicted that black holes emit Hawking Radiation.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that in 1974 a young newcomer named Stephen Hawking predicted that black holes emit a certain kind of radiation, and somebody later named in Hawking Radiation.
This worm sounds like watching Darwinism in action in the digital age.
I wish. If only worms like this knocked people off the internet permanently.
Is it so ridiculous to suggest that software shouldn't just be puked out by anyone that can type?
Yes. It makes you an elitist. Why don't you come down from your ivory tower now and then, huh?
That sounds incredibly 1984 and I'm glad that the media of today has done away with such a draconian idea. Part of the beauty of a free market in information is that opposing viewpoints don't get smothered by the popular madness of the era...
Since when is making shit up that happens to be false an opposing viewpoint? I hope you realize you're sounding a lot more 1984 than what you're criticizing.
Rottenapples. Wow. I actually read a few pages. I had to force myself to keep reading after the first page - unnecessary bold print, highlighted print, unnecessary capitalizations - on and on.
Unnecessary capitalizations? Wow, that sure SOUNDS LIKE the five or SIX words I MIGHT have recently seen unnecessarily in someone's post, which MIGHT be higher up in the current thread...
Hmmmm. Are you Canadian, Tom? Not being sarcastic, really, I'm asking an honest question. It SOUNDS LIKE you are trying to apply US law to a Canadian case.
Really?? Because it sounds to me a lot like he's trying to apply English common law to a Canadian case. Which is, of course, appropriate because all English colonies inherited the English common law and most of them chose to preserve it upon independence. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is definitely a common law standard; I challenge you to show me where the words "beyond a reasonable doubt" appear in the US constitution.
Fact is, I'm not *real* sure about the US. I heard recently that Florida can have non-capital criminal courts with only SIX jurors. Never did check it out - it's just filed away as a curiosity that I should check out.
That's not fundamentally different from a jury of twelve. As long as it's generally regarded as enough people to fairly determine guilt, and it's the same number for all defendants, as specified in local law, then it preserves due process.
settling disputes by fucking
We do that too sometimes, but we call it rape...
I thought we called it make-up sex. Perhaps you have "settling disputes" and "exhibiting dominance" a little bit confused?
P.S. I still use SCO servers running as virtual machines to run obsolete proprietary software.
If it's obsolete, why do you still use it?
My $0.02.
Going once, going twice...Sold!! to the man with the boring slashdot nick!
Congratulations, your two cents has just bought the right not to be sued by SCO!
'This asset sale is an important step forward in ensuring business continuity for our customers around the world,' said Ken Nielsen, SCO chief financial officer, in a statement.
In other news, SCO still has customers. Not only that, customers around the world. I think that's the real story here.
18 USC 871, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully make a true threat to injure or kill the President of the United States.
Yeah, that too. Probably a better argument than my own, given that criminal law has almost entirely been moved from common law to statutory law.
Still, it is a rather ridiculous thing to do especially in light of far more serious threats which need to be pursued.
Possibly. We don't know in great detail what was in the email and what the sequence of events was. Did they know it was a drunken message at the time they decided to ban him? The email of a drunk could probably be easily mistaken for the email of a crazy person, and a majority of the people who've carried out attempts to harm or kill a sitting US President were, to use a clinical term, crazy people.
This is exactly the same thing as if you yelled over the fence to your neighbor, "Hey Bob, your wife's a whore!" and then got all upset that your "freedom of speech" was trampled when he replied "I don't want you coming into my house anymore!".
This is by far the most insightful analysis of the situation I've seen in this thread.
I could agree, except for the fact that speech is supposedly free both in the UK and the US, and otherwise threats are actionable crimial offenses.
In other words: the Secret Service shoud send the accusation to trial or STFU.
Does the Secret Service have standing in Britain?
A prick?
The first article I read about this just showed it as p****, so I thought it might be pussy.
Yes, well, us Yanks are a big prudish about such things you know.
The article is in the Sun. Pussy is on Page 3 (NSFW).
False! Tits are on Page 3! Sadly, no pussy.
Double standards, thou name is Britain.
I have a single standard for shitty use of pseudo-olde English. I hold you and anyone else who uses "thou" when only "thy" would work in equal contempt.
Threatening the head of state is probably in illegal in every country.
Make that "is probably illegal in every country." Not "in illegal", which makes no sense. Sorry.
But I think I called Barack Obama a p***k.
So what? I mean ... so what? A lot of Americans feel the same way and we don't have to be drunk to say it ... free speech and all that. Or do we believe that people in other countries shouldn't be able to express negative opinions about our leaders? What kind of example are we trying to set here?
Maybe we believe people in any country shouldn't be allowed to threaten our leaders. See the police statement in TFA, and also here. I normally take police statements with a grain of salt, but am more apt to trust them than a drunken teenage attention-whore running to a tabloid to tell his story.
Low hanging fruit, I guess. As if a drunken teenager's ramblings constituted some credible threat against the President.
Any threat against the President should be treated as a credible threat against the President.
Besides, I'm a little confused on how a kid gets banned from the United States forever for performing an action that isn't illegal in this country, probably isn't illegal in his, and should have been entirely beneath law enforcement's radar anyway?
Threatening the head of state is probably in illegal in every country.
I'm trying to figure out how "prick" is obscenity, so much so to get you banned from the United States?
The only thing to figure out is how /. got such a shitty summary of the matter. According to police he was threatening the president. That's a crime, and totally different from calling someone a prick.
The usual: Bad Slashdot summary. The facts: Police said the e-mail to the US president was full of abusive language.
More importantly, according to the link you posted: "Bedfordshire police, who then visited Luke, said the e-mail was full of abusive and threatening language." Threatening the president is a crime. Threatening anyone with bodily harm has been a crime for centuries under English common law. Unless the police are lying, there's no free speech issue here.