With those laws they just get that extra offense and several more years that they can throw at you. And remember Capone was arrested and jailed for tax evasion since they could not prove anything more serious and then just threw the harshest sentence they could at him for it. Also their evidence was that he was clearly living beyond his means, as stated by his tax returns. Funny thing to add to that is illegal income is taxable and must be included on your tax filings. 1040, line 21, in case you needed to know.
it is only entrapment if he was forced to commit the crime. Otherwise the u.s. govt may have been collecting evidence, doesn't make a big difference if it was incorrect info or not. If he thought the info was real and gave it away it still is a crime.
That is basically my point. Don't keep it to legislators however, many people have been guilty. In many cases it might be a bit harsh, and remember that this country was founded by traitors to the crown. However from the constitution
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
Which is why we are supposed to be better. Anyone who argues that spies/terrorists/whatever crime you really don't like/think is horribly immoral should receive any less legal protection than the next guy is actively working to undermine our liberties and founding values no better than the terrorists/ whatever they claim to be fighting.
When will people realize that China is keeping its currency value low and attracting manufacturing jobs to its land to slowly accumulate wealth and technology and once it is in strong enough position will call back on its debt and consume what it produces itself to raise its own peoples standard of living and eventually push us to the sideline. China is spending money on its future, we are spending money from the future. Globalization only benefits all when countries work as equals, protectionism is not the way to go but we need to ensure that American companies and Chinese companies are working on even footing. Just seriously propose that we stop importing unless fair labor standards are enforced and if not then cut off access to our markets but we would rather have a dozen tube socks for a dollar.
What the bill should do is provide helthcare to all citizens for limited health problems. You end up in the hospital because you were on a motorcycle and someone ran into you, well that is their fault unless it is yours they should help you. You were born, something you really have no control over, and genetically predisposed to some diseases well that should be covered. I don't think that we need a single payer system for everyone and everything that would encourage premiums on your "hobbies/lifestyle" but how can anyone argue that because you were born predisposed to sickness or higher healthcare costs you should suffer now if you make bad choices that is of course your fault.
While they might be able to get some info this way why bother? Israel already sells much of the sensitive technology that we sell it to China. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/831668.stm Israel is China's 2nd largest arms provider.
"The sources said the deal does not mean the NSA will be viewing users' searches or e-mail accounts or that Google will be sharing proprietary data. " RTFA, some people do take privacy seriously.
Well at first yes, but isn't it a much bigger scam that people get to pollute, obviously they gain other wise they would have to pay to remove their waste pollution is free, rather than pay market value for access to the waste disposal they would use? You would complain about a company dumping waste on your lawn wouldn't you? If not then companies would dump everything they could, massively dropping their waste disposal costs. Unfortunately atmosphere is not easy to control access to, this is basically the classic example of a market failure and one of the few times economists advocate government stepping in and regulating industry by charging them for access to a resource they use but don't pay for. As long as it is free and there are no limits on what they can put in the atmosphere they will put everything they can to lower costs.
What people need to do is find a few facts that represent what they feel is important about a candidate or issue and decide based on those. Only stuff they know to be fact, they don't have to chase down every lie just make their decisions on a handful of solid facts, that takes much less time.
look at your average voter and think how intelligent he is. Then remember half of them are dumber. Here in the U.S. we voted for Bush, twice. There should be punishments for pushing blatantly false information with an intent to harms someones reputation, it is called slander or libel. That being said there should not be any restrictions on correct information that is not being used with the sole intent to hurt someones reputation. Like the recent supreme court decision, responsibility does lay with the voter because in the end it is them who elects a politician placing silly restrictions on correct information should be stopped. That however should not give free range for slander.
Stop it, STOP IT NOW! political ads and contributions only work because people are unwilling to look into the facts. You are hurting democracy even more than that ruling you refer to. Tell people THEY are responsible for who they vote for and if they don't vote well what the hell do they expect? Even a marginally informed public would look at your Concerned Citizens org. and ask who are they. They would form their opinion only on facts that they knew to be true, were reasonable and coherent not some scandal or decision of the moment. "If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty." Thomas Jefferson. Place the blame where it is due, bans on campaign contributions are only a simplistic band-aid of a solution.
So is it wrong to limit free speech when it is not only horribly incorrect but also maliciously so? Say Politician a is afraid of loosing his power to lying scumbag politician b who has no concern for what is true but only winning his own power? Or should that be protected as well?
Ok very important, price to produce has very little to do with final price to consumer, it will influence the minimum price the publisher will accept but that is about it. Books are valuable and thus can be sold as if they are valuable because well they are. With low barrier to entry costs more publishers should enter the market but that is a slightly different issue. If the publisher has no right to unreasonable profit from his work why do you? Imagine a book is free to produce, no cost what so ever, does that mean the publisher should give you the book? Even if you gain say $20 from the book either directly or indirectly your enjoyment etc? If he should then you are making $20 with no effort and if the book is sold for $20 you make no profit and the publisher makes $20 of profit you get the book for what you valued it at. The real problem here is that amazon is a nationwide retailer allowing for everyone to go there and get the book for bare minimum price lowering the price and profit to publisher, who does do some work and same goes for movie and music industry, and in the end more people buy the product for less than what they value it at.
You also got to take into account the affect of dumping exhaust into the atmosphere. It is a public resource by default since everyone has access to due to the difficulty in limiting peoples access I mean it's everywhere. Since access is free people will overuse it, I mean why pay to dispose of something when you can dump for free. You don't even have to agree with global warming just think with all those cars driving all those miles dumping all that exhaust into the atmosphere there will reach a saturation point, this amounts to a major advantage for combustion engines. This is where the government steps in and levels the playing field, one of the basic laws of economics is that less government intervention is usually good not always or never but usually and this is the classic example, so we either tax gasoline more to remove this advantage since if access could more easily be controlled it would and there would be a price or we provide an equal advantage to energy sources that don't take advantage of this little loop hole. For now however I ride a motorcycle which is relatively fuel efficient compared to an SUV, note while I still use gas I use much closer to what I need I don't ride a 4k lb SUV or construction crew truck around when even a 2k lb sedan would do since I only need to move one person which is doing plenty of good itself. Yes price needs to come down and range needs to increase but those were both concerns about combustion engines when they first came out for the wealthy.
reminds me of a joke my dad told me about airline pilots. Used to be there was an engineer to make sure everything worked right and pilot to fly and copilot to assist him if he needed a brake. Now it is pilot and copilot because the planes are so good there is really no use for an engineer on board. Soon it will be that there is just a pilot and a dog, the pilot to make the passengers feel safe like a human is flying and the dog to bite the pilot if he tries to do anything.
Could it be that people who want to text while driving are just bad drivers, or don't understand the risks properly, to begin with and all banning phone use just removes their excuse?
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty...."
Thomas Jefferson, pay special attention to that last sentence.
"Politicians are like little children" because YOU elect children. Once we get idiots to either get informed or not vote this will be a problem. It is not the politicians that act like children its citizens who elect childish politicians. Next time you whine about this "issue" think who voted for this guy. It is like the chicken and the egg problem except we know who comes first, voters who then let "politicians" into office.
Is it news companies job to keep you informed or is it your job to seek news sources that are informative? Put the blame where it is due and quite whining about how they don't inform you.
True, for the most part. If it has value to people they will pay for it. If it costs producers to write about news they have to charge somehow or they will go out of business.
Slashdot Mirror
With those laws they just get that extra offense and several more years that they can throw at you. And remember Capone was arrested and jailed for tax evasion since they could not prove anything more serious and then just threw the harshest sentence they could at him for it. Also their evidence was that he was clearly living beyond his means, as stated by his tax returns. Funny thing to add to that is illegal income is taxable and must be included on your tax filings. 1040, line 21, in case you needed to know.
Facebook owns any image you put of yourself on it and can use it in their marketing or sell it to third parties.
love your country always, your government when it deserves it. simply as that.
it is only entrapment if he was forced to commit the crime. Otherwise the u.s. govt may have been collecting evidence, doesn't make a big difference if it was incorrect info or not. If he thought the info was real and gave it away it still is a crime.
That is basically my point. Don't keep it to legislators however, many people have been guilty. In many cases it might be a bit harsh, and remember that this country was founded by traitors to the crown. However from the constitution "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
Which is why we are supposed to be better. Anyone who argues that spies/terrorists/whatever crime you really don't like/think is horribly immoral should receive any less legal protection than the next guy is actively working to undermine our liberties and founding values no better than the terrorists/ whatever they claim to be fighting.
When will people realize that China is keeping its currency value low and attracting manufacturing jobs to its land to slowly accumulate wealth and technology and once it is in strong enough position will call back on its debt and consume what it produces itself to raise its own peoples standard of living and eventually push us to the sideline. China is spending money on its future, we are spending money from the future. Globalization only benefits all when countries work as equals, protectionism is not the way to go but we need to ensure that American companies and Chinese companies are working on even footing. Just seriously propose that we stop importing unless fair labor standards are enforced and if not then cut off access to our markets but we would rather have a dozen tube socks for a dollar.
What the bill should do is provide helthcare to all citizens for limited health problems. You end up in the hospital because you were on a motorcycle and someone ran into you, well that is their fault unless it is yours they should help you. You were born, something you really have no control over, and genetically predisposed to some diseases well that should be covered. I don't think that we need a single payer system for everyone and everything that would encourage premiums on your "hobbies/lifestyle" but how can anyone argue that because you were born predisposed to sickness or higher healthcare costs you should suffer now if you make bad choices that is of course your fault.
While they might be able to get some info this way why bother? Israel already sells much of the sensitive technology that we sell it to China. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/831668.stm Israel is China's 2nd largest arms provider.
"The sources said the deal does not mean the NSA will be viewing users' searches or e-mail accounts or that Google will be sharing proprietary data. " RTFA, some people do take privacy seriously.
Well at first yes, but isn't it a much bigger scam that people get to pollute, obviously they gain other wise they would have to pay to remove their waste pollution is free, rather than pay market value for access to the waste disposal they would use? You would complain about a company dumping waste on your lawn wouldn't you? If not then companies would dump everything they could, massively dropping their waste disposal costs. Unfortunately atmosphere is not easy to control access to, this is basically the classic example of a market failure and one of the few times economists advocate government stepping in and regulating industry by charging them for access to a resource they use but don't pay for. As long as it is free and there are no limits on what they can put in the atmosphere they will put everything they can to lower costs.
"This would obviously be immoral." Never stopped any psychologist before ever. [link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_albert%5D
What people need to do is find a few facts that represent what they feel is important about a candidate or issue and decide based on those. Only stuff they know to be fact, they don't have to chase down every lie just make their decisions on a handful of solid facts, that takes much less time.
look at your average voter and think how intelligent he is. Then remember half of them are dumber. Here in the U.S. we voted for Bush, twice. There should be punishments for pushing blatantly false information with an intent to harms someones reputation, it is called slander or libel. That being said there should not be any restrictions on correct information that is not being used with the sole intent to hurt someones reputation. Like the recent supreme court decision, responsibility does lay with the voter because in the end it is them who elects a politician placing silly restrictions on correct information should be stopped. That however should not give free range for slander.
Stop it, STOP IT NOW! political ads and contributions only work because people are unwilling to look into the facts. You are hurting democracy even more than that ruling you refer to. Tell people THEY are responsible for who they vote for and if they don't vote well what the hell do they expect? Even a marginally informed public would look at your Concerned Citizens org. and ask who are they. They would form their opinion only on facts that they knew to be true, were reasonable and coherent not some scandal or decision of the moment. "If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty." Thomas Jefferson. Place the blame where it is due, bans on campaign contributions are only a simplistic band-aid of a solution.
So is it wrong to limit free speech when it is not only horribly incorrect but also maliciously so? Say Politician a is afraid of loosing his power to lying scumbag politician b who has no concern for what is true but only winning his own power? Or should that be protected as well?
Ok very important, price to produce has very little to do with final price to consumer, it will influence the minimum price the publisher will accept but that is about it. Books are valuable and thus can be sold as if they are valuable because well they are. With low barrier to entry costs more publishers should enter the market but that is a slightly different issue. If the publisher has no right to unreasonable profit from his work why do you? Imagine a book is free to produce, no cost what so ever, does that mean the publisher should give you the book? Even if you gain say $20 from the book either directly or indirectly your enjoyment etc? If he should then you are making $20 with no effort and if the book is sold for $20 you make no profit and the publisher makes $20 of profit you get the book for what you valued it at. The real problem here is that amazon is a nationwide retailer allowing for everyone to go there and get the book for bare minimum price lowering the price and profit to publisher, who does do some work and same goes for movie and music industry, and in the end more people buy the product for less than what they value it at.
You also got to take into account the affect of dumping exhaust into the atmosphere. It is a public resource by default since everyone has access to due to the difficulty in limiting peoples access I mean it's everywhere. Since access is free people will overuse it, I mean why pay to dispose of something when you can dump for free. You don't even have to agree with global warming just think with all those cars driving all those miles dumping all that exhaust into the atmosphere there will reach a saturation point, this amounts to a major advantage for combustion engines. This is where the government steps in and levels the playing field, one of the basic laws of economics is that less government intervention is usually good not always or never but usually and this is the classic example, so we either tax gasoline more to remove this advantage since if access could more easily be controlled it would and there would be a price or we provide an equal advantage to energy sources that don't take advantage of this little loop hole. For now however I ride a motorcycle which is relatively fuel efficient compared to an SUV, note while I still use gas I use much closer to what I need I don't ride a 4k lb SUV or construction crew truck around when even a 2k lb sedan would do since I only need to move one person which is doing plenty of good itself. Yes price needs to come down and range needs to increase but those were both concerns about combustion engines when they first came out for the wealthy.
Giving them even $2 would set a precedent, not that not having precedent or completely ignoring law has stopped the RIAA before.
reminds me of a joke my dad told me about airline pilots. Used to be there was an engineer to make sure everything worked right and pilot to fly and copilot to assist him if he needed a brake. Now it is pilot and copilot because the planes are so good there is really no use for an engineer on board. Soon it will be that there is just a pilot and a dog, the pilot to make the passengers feel safe like a human is flying and the dog to bite the pilot if he tries to do anything.
Could it be that people who want to text while driving are just bad drivers, or don't understand the risks properly, to begin with and all banning phone use just removes their excuse?
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ..."
Thomas Jefferson, pay special attention to that last sentence.
"Politicians are like little children" because YOU elect children. Once we get idiots to either get informed or not vote this will be a problem. It is not the politicians that act like children its citizens who elect childish politicians. Next time you whine about this "issue" think who voted for this guy. It is like the chicken and the egg problem except we know who comes first, voters who then let "politicians" into office.
Is it news companies job to keep you informed or is it your job to seek news sources that are informative? Put the blame where it is due and quite whining about how they don't inform you.
True, for the most part. If it has value to people they will pay for it. If it costs producers to write about news they have to charge somehow or they will go out of business.