You have the right to leave, but he can keep asking questions ad infinitum, haul you downtown for questions, etc.
They can't keep asking questions ad infinitum without arresting you. You can leave if they don't charge you with a crime, and you can certainly stop the questioning to get a lawyer. Besides, being "downtown for questions" is a lot different than being asked for your name in the course of a routine investigation.
That is, incidentally, why there are so many people presently in 'detaining facilities' where they aren't charged with actual crimes but are denied the right to leave and legal counsel.
Just curious, how many people are stuck in this situation? I'm not a big fan of that provision of the Patriot Act, either, but I've only heard of two people that I know of being held like this. Comparing suspected terrorists with the guy who was fined $250 for not answering a simple question seems like the proverbial apples and oranges to me.
You're right; it's not testifying in court. The supreme court did hear testimony about Hiibel arguing his 5th Amendment rights were violated, and thus were empowered to make a decision about whether they were or not.
The court also upheld that an officer has a right to ask you your identification if he suspects you of being involved in a crime:
Beginning with Terry v.Ohio,392 U.S.1, the Court has recognized that an officer's reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further.
The key is that you don't technically have the right to remain silent until you are arrested. You do, however, have the right to leave if you are not under arrest. The officer may excerise his discretion in asking you questions to continue his investigation, and you may be arrested for obstructing the invetigation if you refuse to answer.
I understand your point, but I still don't think that's what happened here. The accused didn't plead the fifth until after the fact.
Before today, when in US history did the individual suspect pleading the 5th have to justify it?
Always!
The witness must have reasonable cause to apprehend danger from an answer, but he may not be the sole judge of the validity of his claim. While the trial judge may not require a witness to disclose so much of the danger as to render the privilege nugatory, he must determine whether there is a reasonable apprehension of incrimination by considering the circumstances of the case, his knowledge of matters surrounding the inquiry, and the nature of the evidence which is demanded from the witness.
341 U.S. at 488 (quoting Temple v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. 892, 898 (1881)).
and
One must explicitly claim his privilege or he will be deemed to have waived it, and waiver may be found where the witness has answered some preliminary questions but desires to stop at a certain point.
Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (1951); Mason v. United States, 244 U.S. 362 (1917).
The point of the court in this decision (in the section that deals with the 5th amendment) is that the 5th isn't a shield you can hide behind when you don't feel like answering questions. If you're called to testify in court, you are compelled to tell the truth to all questions unless you invoke your 5th amendment rights. If you refused to answer every single question because of the 5th amendment, it really looks like you're guilty of obstruction of justice rather than a staunch believer in not being forced to self-incriminate.
If the individual doesn't get to decide himself what is potentially incriminating the 5th ammendment is totally pointless.
The individual can and should decide what is potentially incriminating, but if you articulate it as a defense (in this case, it wasn't mentioned until after the fact) against a different law, you'd better be prepared to back it up. Supreme Court judges probably don't think "I didn't feel like it" to be a good reason, which is exactly what section (c) of their finding is about:
Hiibel's refusal to disclose was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it would furnish evidence needed to prosecute him.... It appears he refused to identify himself only because he thought his name was none of the officer's business. While the Court recognizes his strong belief that he should not have to disclose his identity, the Fifth Amendment does not override the Nevada Legislature's judgment to the contrary absent a reasonable belief that the disclosure would tend to incriminate him.
In other words, the court decided that his refusal to state his identity did not infringe on his 5th Amendment rights, since he failed to have any "reasonable belief" that his name might incriminate him. This may or may not have to be articulated if such a belief did exist, but that isn't relevant to this specific case, since it didn't exist. I would imagine that a decent lawyer could argue that a reasonable belief for self-incrimination did exist (if that was the case) without specifically enumerating the causes for that belief. Here, though, that argument wasn't even made.
For what it's worth, the courts also cited vagrancy laws dating back to 1787 in their decision. I thought that was pretty amusing, but I don't find it surprising or threatening.
But saying your name alone doesn't seem incriminating.
Unless, of course, you're on the shit list of some local government agency, for speaking out against said government agency. And then you might suddenly find yourself with a busted tail light, a flat tire, or even 'suspicion of transporting drugs' which, in the South at least, can get your car completely dismantled.
The court found that Hiibel couldn't hid behind the fifth amendment, since he had no reasonable right to believe that his name could be incriminating evidence. If you honestly believe that your name could be incriminating evidence, you have a brand new argument that the court could hear.
The right to remain silent comes from the right to not be forced to self-incriminate, which every court involved in this case decided was not a reasonable factor in this case as all. I don't think it's under attack here at all.
Doesn't gravity effecct objects regardless of the distance between them? Meaning to say, that gravity, however weak, will always have this attractive force.
That's not believed to be true, actually. See this story for details. Generally, the speed of gravity is assumed to be c. If that's true, the gravity of Earth isn't affecting anything we can't see yet.
(No, I don't mean that gravity doesn't effect things that don't produce/reflect light. You know what I mean.)
I don't know of any law that prohibits or demands this. Likely you can find some way to do it that's not illegal, given enough money.
Do you think you should have right to know at least Name and Address of person living 2 doors next to you?
No.
Don't you think you should have the right to know who else is living in your apartment ?
No.
You think real world law of free speech should apply in virtual world, then why not the custom that demands you give your name/address while getting a phone service/www service or a domain name ?
Really, the only reason that you need a name and address when you get phone service is so that the company can 1) enable phone service to that address, and 2) bill you for it. The first requirement doesn't come into play for DNS, and the paying for the service may or may not actually require an address depending on who you do business with.
Some things can (and are) classified as "none of your business (NOYB)" in certain circumstances. If a person in street demands your shoe number, you can tell him NOYB... but not to the shoe shop attendant!
Actually, you're perfectly within your rights to do this. It may not be in your best interest if you need shoes, but you could.
You DO NOT have right to be anonymous while communicating!
You don't not have the right, either. Generally, people are allowed to do things so long as they're not illegal. You might not have the right to be anonymous while posting something on the Internet, but there's nothing stopping you if you want to be.
Generally, I think things like this come down to refusal: you have to right to refuse to give your name/address to anybody you don't want to give it to, including the phone compnay. The phone company has the right to refuse you service if you don't give it to them. If you want to live your life as a hermit in a privately owned house without phone service, newspaper delivery, &c., that is perfectly within your rights.
The Founding Fathers on Violent Overthrows
on
Linking Dangerously
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The thought police are here. You say 'oh well he wants to overtrough the gov't, that's BAD(tm)'.
So did your founding fathers. Fucking Americans.
That's actually not true at all. The Founding Fathers were all for violent overthrow of governments, so long as the government in question wasn't a good one. Remember, they actually went and did that.
In the Declaration of Independece, they wrote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
This is why they included the second amendment in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution; in the minds of the Founding Fathers, the people should be able to take up arms against an oppressive government if necessary.
You should note that Omni likes tabbed browsing and they're doing work on it:
I really like the tabbed browsing feature found in Netscape 7/Chimera Navigator/Mozilla. Do you have any plans to add this feature to OmniWeb?
We feel the functionality that tabbed browsing provides is very useful and we do plan to add something similar to OmniWeb with version 5.0.
Entry last updated on June 24, 2002
If anything, they'd probably be more evil - MS pulls more than its fair share of dirty tricks but they rarely resort to using the law as their weapon as Apple do all too frequently.
I think that Microsoft doesn't have to resort to the law; the company is big enough that they don't need the law to fight somebody pissing them off. All they need to do is threaten to drop support for a product, a feature, threaten a license audit...etc.
So which method is more "underhanded?" The one with lawyers, or the one with (psychological) thugs?
Interesting. Wouldn't such an explosion be a by-product of my proposed death (or vice-versa)? Granted that in such an environment, one's blood would begin to boil. The increased pressure on your viens/arteries/capillaries would cause them to explode, as the vapor pressure of all of your internal liquids would cause the same outward pressure.
Since they're related to the same cause (difference in pressure), I wonder if one causes the other or if they'd both happen independently.
Almost certain I remember having this discussion on what would happen first among many possible horrible deaths upon exposure to a complete vacuum (i.e., do you asphyxiate before you freeze to death?).
The answer my friends and I came up with was that the most likely thing to kill you first was the lack of pressure causing your blood to boil off, which would happen relatively quickly: a few seconds after exposure, at best.
Of course, if anybody wants to volunteer to see if I'm right, knock yourself out. =)
Correction: That's actually option-u then [letter] for an umlaut and option-s...if you need to find any special characters, check Key Caps (in Applications/Utilities for OSX, under the Apple Menu for OS9 and under).
Command-S (or Open-Apple, if you prefer) is almost always Save.
Not necessarily. It depends on things started. Celestial objects (stars, planets, black holes, comets, whatever) form orbits around massive objects based upon how they're formed and/or their entry trajectory and speed. It's quite possible for the star to be in a stable orbit around the black hole, just as Earth is in orbit around an object much more massive. The physics at great enough distances (outside the event horizon) is the same.
The simple fact of the matter is that no matter what kind of stuff Napster puts into the files, they're still music files...and copying just the music (and not the advertisements, if any) just involves capturing the stuff on the way to speakers....and if there are restrictions on the Napster-distributed files, it's solved the same way: record it on the way to the speakers, and make a new mp3 file. Easy, it's beend done before. Unless they come up with something brand new and creative....in which case, somebody smart out there will, too.
I'm one of Selmer's students in the Minds & Machines Program here at RPI, and I know there is a fundamental difference between Brutus and people. For now, that difference is creativity. Brutus was told/taught about English, much as we were, and the university setting, etc. What is different between something that I write and what Brutus.1 writes is where it comes from. I know that Brutus.1 has a limited knowledge base from which it writes, but I'm not sure I can pinpoint where these words I'm writing are coming from as my fingers type them.
I personally think that Brutus' stories are a little static, but not as bad as some of the things I've read. As a literary critic (which I'm not), I think the weakest part of the stories are consistently the endings -- for me, it leaves little sense of conclusion and zero resolution. But then again, that's just me.
For people who write about the computer writing perfect English as opposed to "normal" everyday speaking and writing with small mistakes, it's very easy to program a computer to make typos, etc. As far as Selmer's comment about Brutus.1 not being conscious, it definitely isn't, and not because it doesn't have a body; it's because it wasn't built to be conscious. It doesn't have a cohesive grasp of stories, and I don't think it has any idea about anything around it, not does it actually understand anything about the feeling of betrayl or anything associated with it. It might know how to express it in written English, but writing about something and knowing it are two very different things indeed.
It's true that Selmer doesn't believe in Strong AI, and if you ever have the pleasure of meeting him you'll find that his arguments are clear, concise, and based perfectly on logic. My views are extrememly similar to his, and I don't believe that Strong AI is possible either; I'm resistant to what some claim is the "fact" that I'm basically a machine. However, this personal belief that Stong AI can't really work or exist is exactly what drives me to see if I can make it happen.
I think that the human-conglomerate will lose, and I don't think it will say much about humanity, either.
Deep Blue was the product of a lot of work, time, and effort on the part of a great deal of engineers, computer scientists, and grandmasters. First, remember that Deep Blue was (is) a multiprocessor machine. All of this "Distrubited.net" stuff is basically what it did.
Even if we assume that all of these people everywhere each "examine" different moves, Deep Blue had something many people never had. It learned chess (the technique, anyway) from grandmasters. It had a library of grandmaster games that it could pick out situations from to see how a move might turn out. That is, it could take its current situation and see if it had happened before, what that grandmaster did, and whether that grandmaster won or lost because of it. It was also beta tested by playing games with current grandmasters and had its "style" refined through their comments and suggestions.
I've talked with the man who was in charge of the Deep Blue project; and I believe that generally Deep Blue has a lot of advantages that humanity doesn't (at least when it comes to chess). Considering that Deep Blue barely beat Kasparov the second time, humanity in this case stands naught a chance. (IMHO)
Well, I'm a Mac user, and I'll admit it: my computer isn't perfect. Neither is my operating system. And Apple has certainly had its share of mistakes in the past (and probably the future).
But nothing's perfect, and I can say with certainty that despite their shortcomings, I love my operating system and the company that makes it. I have yet to see a wintel user that can say the same.
Slashdot Mirror
You have the right to leave, but he can keep asking questions ad infinitum, haul you downtown for questions, etc.
They can't keep asking questions ad infinitum without arresting you. You can leave if they don't charge you with a crime, and you can certainly stop the questioning to get a lawyer. Besides, being "downtown for questions" is a lot different than being asked for your name in the course of a routine investigation.
That is, incidentally, why there are so many people presently in 'detaining facilities' where they aren't charged with actual crimes but are denied the right to leave and legal counsel.
Just curious, how many people are stuck in this situation? I'm not a big fan of that provision of the Patriot Act, either, but I've only heard of two people that I know of being held like this. Comparing suspected terrorists with the guy who was fined $250 for not answering a simple question seems like the proverbial apples and oranges to me.
The court also upheld that an officer has a right to ask you your identification if he suspects you of being involved in a crime:
The key is that you don't technically have the right to remain silent until you are arrested. You do, however, have the right to leave if you are not under arrest. The officer may excerise his discretion in asking you questions to continue his investigation, and you may be arrested for obstructing the invetigation if you refuse to answer.
Before today, when in US history did the individual suspect pleading the 5th have to justify it?
Always!
and
The point of the court in this decision (in the section that deals with the 5th amendment) is that the 5th isn't a shield you can hide behind when you don't feel like answering questions. If you're called to testify in court, you are compelled to tell the truth to all questions unless you invoke your 5th amendment rights. If you refused to answer every single question because of the 5th amendment, it really looks like you're guilty of obstruction of justice rather than a staunch believer in not being forced to self-incriminate.
The individual can and should decide what is potentially incriminating, but if you articulate it as a defense (in this case, it wasn't mentioned until after the fact) against a different law, you'd better be prepared to back it up. Supreme Court judges probably don't think "I didn't feel like it" to be a good reason, which is exactly what section (c) of their finding is about:
In other words, the court decided that his refusal to state his identity did not infringe on his 5th Amendment rights, since he failed to have any "reasonable belief" that his name might incriminate him. This may or may not have to be articulated if such a belief did exist, but that isn't relevant to this specific case, since it didn't exist. I would imagine that a decent lawyer could argue that a reasonable belief for self-incrimination did exist (if that was the case) without specifically enumerating the causes for that belief. Here, though, that argument wasn't even made.
For what it's worth, the courts also cited vagrancy laws dating back to 1787 in their decision. I thought that was pretty amusing, but I don't find it surprising or threatening.
But saying your name alone doesn't seem incriminating.
Unless, of course, you're on the shit list of some local government agency, for speaking out against said government agency. And then you might suddenly find yourself with a busted tail light, a flat tire, or even 'suspicion of transporting drugs' which, in the South at least, can get your car completely dismantled.
The court found that Hiibel couldn't hid behind the fifth amendment, since he had no reasonable right to believe that his name could be incriminating evidence. If you honestly believe that your name could be incriminating evidence, you have a brand new argument that the court could hear.
The right to remain silent comes from the right to not be forced to self-incriminate, which every court involved in this case decided was not a reasonable factor in this case as all. I don't think it's under attack here at all.
Doesn't gravity effecct objects regardless of the distance between them? Meaning to say, that gravity, however weak, will always have this attractive force.
That's not believed to be true, actually. See this story for details. Generally, the speed of gravity is assumed to be c. If that's true, the gravity of Earth isn't affecting anything we can't see yet.
(No, I don't mean that gravity doesn't effect things that don't produce/reflect light. You know what I mean.)
Can you buy property anonymously?
I don't know of any law that prohibits or demands this. Likely you can find some way to do it that's not illegal, given enough money.
Do you think you should have right to know at least Name and Address of person living 2 doors next to you?
No.
Don't you think you should have the right to know who else is living in your apartment ?
No.
You think real world law of free speech should apply in virtual world, then why not the custom that demands you give your name/address while getting a phone service/www service or a domain name ?
Really, the only reason that you need a name and address when you get phone service is so that the company can 1) enable phone service to that address, and 2) bill you for it. The first requirement doesn't come into play for DNS, and the paying for the service may or may not actually require an address depending on who you do business with.
Some things can (and are) classified as "none of your business (NOYB)" in certain circumstances. If a person in street demands your shoe number, you can tell him NOYB... but not to the shoe shop attendant!
Actually, you're perfectly within your rights to do this. It may not be in your best interest if you need shoes, but you could.
You DO NOT have right to be anonymous while communicating!
You don't not have the right, either. Generally, people are allowed to do things so long as they're not illegal. You might not have the right to be anonymous while posting something on the Internet, but there's nothing stopping you if you want to be.
Generally, I think things like this come down to refusal: you have to right to refuse to give your name/address to anybody you don't want to give it to, including the phone compnay. The phone company has the right to refuse you service if you don't give it to them. If you want to live your life as a hermit in a privately owned house without phone service, newspaper delivery, &c., that is perfectly within your rights.
So did your founding fathers. Fucking Americans.
That's actually not true at all. The Founding Fathers were all for violent overthrow of governments, so long as the government in question wasn't a good one. Remember, they actually went and did that. In the Declaration of Independece, they wrote: This is why they included the second amendment in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution; in the minds of the Founding Fathers, the people should be able to take up arms against an oppressive government if necessary.
You should note that Omni likes tabbed browsing and they're doing work on it:
I really like the tabbed browsing feature found in Netscape 7/Chimera Navigator/Mozilla. Do you have any plans to add this feature to OmniWeb?
We feel the functionality that tabbed browsing provides is very useful and we do plan to add something similar to OmniWeb with version 5.0. Entry last updated on June 24, 2002
source: OmniWeb Support + Help Page
Story also here[cnn.com] on CNN.
If anything, they'd probably be more evil - MS pulls more than its fair share of dirty tricks but they rarely resort to using the law as their weapon as Apple do all too frequently.
I think that Microsoft doesn't have to resort to the law; the company is big enough that they don't need the law to fight somebody pissing them off. All they need to do is threaten to drop support for a product, a feature, threaten a license audit...etc.
So which method is more "underhanded?" The one with lawyers, or the one with (psychological) thugs?
Interesting. Wouldn't such an explosion be a by-product of my proposed death (or vice-versa)? Granted that in such an environment, one's blood would begin to boil. The increased pressure on your viens/arteries/capillaries would cause them to explode, as the vapor pressure of all of your internal liquids would cause the same outward pressure.
Since they're related to the same cause (difference in pressure), I wonder if one causes the other or if they'd both happen independently.
Almost certain I remember having this discussion on what would happen first among many possible horrible deaths upon exposure to a complete vacuum (i.e., do you asphyxiate before you freeze to death?).
The answer my friends and I came up with was that the most likely thing to kill you first was the lack of pressure causing your blood to boil off, which would happen relatively quickly: a few seconds after exposure, at best.
Of course, if anybody wants to volunteer to see if I'm right, knock yourself out. =)
I always liked this one better as, "Why did the chicken cross the Moebius strip? To get to the other si- ...oh."
Correction: That's actually option-u then [letter] for an umlaut and option-s...if you need to find any special characters, check Key Caps (in Applications/Utilities for OSX, under the Apple Menu for OS9 and under).
Command-S (or Open-Apple, if you prefer) is almost always Save.
Not necessarily. It depends on things started. Celestial objects (stars, planets, black holes, comets, whatever) form orbits around massive objects based upon how they're formed and/or their entry trajectory and speed. It's quite possible for the star to be in a stable orbit around the black hole, just as Earth is in orbit around an object much more massive. The physics at great enough distances (outside the event horizon) is the same.
The simple fact of the matter is that no matter what kind of stuff Napster puts into the files, they're still music files...and copying just the music (and not the advertisements, if any) just involves capturing the stuff on the way to speakers....and if there are restrictions on the Napster-distributed files, it's solved the same way: record it on the way to the speakers, and make a new mp3 file. Easy, it's beend done before. Unless they come up with something brand new and creative....in which case, somebody smart out there will, too.
So much to say here...
I'm one of Selmer's students in the Minds & Machines Program here at RPI, and I know there is a fundamental difference between Brutus and people. For now, that difference is creativity. Brutus was told/taught about English, much as we were, and the university setting, etc. What is different between something that I write and what Brutus.1 writes is where it comes from. I know that Brutus.1 has a limited knowledge base from which it writes, but I'm not sure I can pinpoint where these words I'm writing are coming from as my fingers type them.
I personally think that Brutus' stories are a little static, but not as bad as some of the things I've read. As a literary critic (which I'm not), I think the weakest part of the stories are consistently the endings -- for me, it leaves little sense of conclusion and zero resolution. But then again, that's just me.
For people who write about the computer writing perfect English as opposed to "normal" everyday speaking and writing with small mistakes, it's very easy to program a computer to make typos, etc.
As far as Selmer's comment about Brutus.1 not being conscious, it definitely isn't, and not because it doesn't have a body; it's because it wasn't built to be conscious. It doesn't have a cohesive grasp of stories, and I don't think it has any idea about anything around it, not does it actually understand anything about the feeling of betrayl or anything associated with it. It might know how to express it in written English, but writing about something and knowing it are two very different things indeed.
It's true that Selmer doesn't believe in Strong AI, and if you ever have the pleasure of meeting him you'll find that his arguments are clear, concise, and based perfectly on logic. My views are extrememly similar to his, and I don't believe that Strong AI is possible either; I'm resistant to what some claim is the "fact" that I'm basically a machine. However, this personal belief that Stong AI can't really work or exist is exactly what drives me to see if I can make it happen.
I think that the human-conglomerate will lose, and I don't think it will say much about humanity, either.
Deep Blue was the product of a lot of work, time, and effort on the part of a great deal of engineers, computer scientists, and grandmasters. First, remember that Deep Blue was (is) a multiprocessor machine. All of this "Distrubited.net" stuff is basically what it did.
Even if we assume that all of these people everywhere each "examine" different moves, Deep Blue had something many people never had. It learned chess (the technique, anyway) from grandmasters. It had a library of grandmaster games that it could pick out situations from to see how a move might turn out. That is, it could take its current situation and see if it had happened before, what that grandmaster did, and whether that grandmaster won or lost because of it. It was also beta tested by playing games with current grandmasters and had its "style" refined through their comments and suggestions.
I've talked with the man who was in charge of the Deep Blue project; and I believe that generally Deep Blue has a lot of advantages that humanity doesn't (at least when it comes to chess). Considering that Deep Blue barely beat Kasparov the second time, humanity in this case stands naught a chance. (IMHO)
Well, I'm a Mac user, and I'll admit it: my computer isn't perfect. Neither is my operating system. And Apple has certainly had its share of mistakes in the past (and probably the future).
But nothing's perfect, and I can say with certainty that despite their shortcomings, I love my operating system and the company that makes it. I have yet to see a wintel user that can say the same.