So what you're saying is, is that both the government and courts have overstepped their bounds. And have tossed the enshrined law of the land(constitution) to the wind. And yet there's people who still believe that taking away the personal right of gun ownership to stop such is a good option.
Except when it impacts customers in other countries where the laws are different. See, in Canada the FBI doing this falls under the clause of causing mischief. Regardless of whether or not there's an ongoing criminal investigation. This is one of the reasons why if your data is taken in canada, your data is safe in canada. If the US government wants to play the 'we can reach across the border and do shit'
Per 430CC
Mischief in relation to data
(1.1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully
(a) destroys or alters data;
(b) renders data meaningless, useless or ineffective;
(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use of data; or
(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use of data or denies access to data to any person who is entitled to access thereto.
Well...they might get a nasty surprise. Since our extradition treaty covers mischief, and the arrest and deportation of individuals back to canada to stand trial. In Canada mischief can be carried into IO(that's felony for americans)territory regarding the rendering of data being unusable.
It might seem like a good idea, but it doesn't work very well in a lot of subjects. Tell me how well that works out when you have a professor that can spew out a 700 page lawbook worth of knowledge in a 1.5hr period and expect you to have it more or less memorized for the following week for the spot test. Especially when that type of information is required to be at the top of your head at all times.
Sadly there is no data to back me up, but i wonder if mugging and other random crime is reduced by a functioning welfare system. This in that it removes the desperation for many people, leaving mostly addicts and the mentally ill as performers of such crimes.
Well the simple answer is no. The long answer is no. A welfare system generally shifts the types of crime that happen from base thefts to higher levels of crime. Though comparing north american to say european stats are difficult, because of the way people are handled within the system and the crime metrics are different.
Also crime falls into two general areas. Opportunity based, and generational. Opportunity based crimes fall into further categories such as risk vs opportunity, or chance vs thrill. Generational means that it's a part of the family growing up, and only when a person decides not to do it, does it change.
But to simply boil down your question? Does a welfare system reduce mugging and random crime? Not really. You only need to see the incidence reports in the UK which as a very generous welfare system, along with Germany and Holland. It actually becomes the new hobby.
Yep. Nothing quite like a quasi-binding non-elected government body dictating to a sovereign nation on what they should do on their internal affairs. You forgot to mention about them wanting to siphon off a few trillion euros and be immune from prosecution though.
Boy people still go on with that shit huh? So tell me something. There's this murder trial going on up here in Canada, in Ontario, in a city called Kingston. Heard of it? Maybe. It was on CNN today. Did you know that the only media outlet that's printed that they're muslim in the US was fox? Every media outlet, including the CBC in Canada printed that. It's like the majority of the media you guys have, fears printing the truth. Or they're afraid that telling you the truth about people is a bad thing.
Hey did they tell you that there was a bomb threat there today? Well most of them didn't, they just told you that it was evacuated because of a 'security' concern. But the police briefing to the media stated a bomb threat.
I can cite example after example, I'd say it's more a specific problem of political correctness trumping freedom of the press, and very few people standing up to it. Hell, you even see that during the WH press briefings, well if you ever watch them unedited.
Steam started trading last year. So I'm not sure what your complaint about steam is. Though other stuff is in the pipe still, but saying you can't sell it? No you can, it's just BBW still.
You have read the muslim brotherhoods statements of declaration right? You know the parts where they believe that there should be no peace with israel, there should be no peace with jews, that women have a specific role and should be relegated to the home. That sharia should be the highest law of the land, so on and so forth.
It's all right there, in front of you. On their own website.
No, it doesn't. These words *mean* things. Fascist doesn't mean "bad", and fundamentalist doesn't mean single party.
Really? Can you tell me of a a good religious theocracy that's been a benevolent dictatorship outside of the supposition believed to be true based on historical texts? Can you name a fascist government that hasn't murdered it's own people, simply to murder it's own people to keep them in line?
Words are also actions, actions are also ideas and ideals. Those are put into practice, and when put into practice without the temperament, horrific things are done. Our modern history in the last 600 years are a testament to these things. And in some cases, those things have been far worse by some groups then others. Don't be ignorant and try to play the fool by saying they're "just things."
They didn't elect dictatorship and fascism. They elected a backward fundamentalist religious government. There is a difference, even if neither is very good.
The difference between fascism and a fundamentalist religious government, is one uses religion as a pretext. The other uses the word of man. In both cases, they're the same thing, it's simply interpretation that defines how screwed up it will become.
And we remember what happens when you elect dictatorships and fascism don't we? Especially with groups that already espouse the destruction of another people and religion. I can count on one hand the number of benevolent dictatorships that we've seen in the last 300 years.
Sure, and those laws were over-turned, in time, and inplace. Let's not forget either that in all of those cases there were still fundamental freedoms that allowed them all to be tested against a foundational principal. In egypts case, much like malaysias for example, the highest law of the land being pushed is islamic, or 7th century sharia. Those were the highest laws of the land are religious.
It may have taken awhile for democratic countries to start running themselves well. But electing a group of people who's belief that walking backwards into the past, is a step forward is silly. Especially when the dictatorship, may have been oppressive, but allowed more freedom then what is coming down the pipe.
If you think the muslim brotherhood is moderate, you're fooling yourself. These are the same guys who hold the same beliefs as 50 years ago when they wanted to slap tents on women, and make them into second class citizens. They didn't change, they were banned. They held on to their ideals, and simply spread them among the populace.
Oh come on. The media elitists keep telling us that this arab spring is nothing but good stuff, and there's rainbows, and cookies, and everyone is going to hold hands. That's why in egypt they just elected a group of people which will be happily throwing the countries legal system back to the 13th-14th century, and quickly shoving women back to chattel status.
Oh...and the same thing is going on in libya. Sadly the people that believed this revolution stuff would be positive were so naive that it made me wonder if they'd ever left their home countries and wondered the world in the slightest.
That's nice. But legally since google operates in Canada, and Germany. They're still bound by the privacy laws of both countries, and in turn the EU privacy laws. In Canada, modifying the privacy terms requires that they contact you directly not by 'notification' by directly via your contact information which is provided. Otherwise the changes are considered null and void. Further, specific individual tracking across sites has further stipulations which have to be agreed to which the user may be allowed to optout of regardless of.
Failing to notify individuals of the change, means that they're in violation of the statue, and in turn violation of federal law. Regardless of what google thinks they're doing, outside of the US, in Canada, they'll be breaking the law.
Why shouldn't they be. In some countries, you know, outside of the US. Cross-product tracking is still...illegal, and requires written or verbal permission before a change like this can happen.
If the government failed to properly inform the public, yet they're still raming it though. Is that even legal in poland? I seem to remember something in their laws about that being pretty illegal after they got back to that whole democracy thing.
Bell and Rogers have been controlling the CRTC though Konrad Von Frankenstin(yes I know not his name) for years, those of us involved in fighting for digital rights have seen it time and time again. The whole UBB fiasco was a direct result of his: "and these guys said..." mentality. He was replaced at the end of his term by the conservatives. Simply because he was doing what wasn't in the best interest of Canadians.
Despite all the whining and crying of people, and how they bitch and moan the the conservatives are evil people only out for corporate interests. So far, they're the only government we've had that's pushed for more competition in the markets. Wind mobile(when rogers and bell), tried to cockblock them for example, and block not only the spectrum bidding, but tried to block them out of the market because they weren't "canadian enough" yes we do have that on the books here(thanks liberals). Or when UBB came up, and the industry minister said: "We will overrule the CRTC on this issue if we don't feel it's in the best interest of consumers."
You'd watch Fox huh? No lambasting of all the other networks that are even worse like NPR, MSNBC, CBS? Oh well, if you're that blinded by partisanship you can only reap what you want.
Yeah. I believe the TSA in, and as much as if someone pissed on me and told me it was a gentle rain shower. You remember those strip searches, and how they didn't happen? Yeah. Those strip searches.
Slashdot Mirror
So what you're saying is, is that both the government and courts have overstepped their bounds. And have tossed the enshrined law of the land(constitution) to the wind. And yet there's people who still believe that taking away the personal right of gun ownership to stop such is a good option.
Right-o, carry on.
If I remember correctly CALEA still requires a warrant.
Except when it impacts customers in other countries where the laws are different. See, in Canada the FBI doing this falls under the clause of causing mischief. Regardless of whether or not there's an ongoing criminal investigation. This is one of the reasons why if your data is taken in canada, your data is safe in canada. If the US government wants to play the 'we can reach across the border and do shit'
Per 430CC
Mischief in relation to data
(1.1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully
(a) destroys or alters data;
(b) renders data meaningless, useless or ineffective;
(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use of data; or
(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use of data or denies access to data to any person who is entitled to access thereto.
Well...they might get a nasty surprise. Since our extradition treaty covers mischief, and the arrest and deportation of individuals back to canada to stand trial. In Canada mischief can be carried into IO(that's felony for americans)territory regarding the rendering of data being unusable.
Indeed. Though your ability to know mounds of knowledge and apply it to the situation at hand is crucial.
It might seem like a good idea, but it doesn't work very well in a lot of subjects. Tell me how well that works out when you have a professor that can spew out a 700 page lawbook worth of knowledge in a 1.5hr period and expect you to have it more or less memorized for the following week for the spot test. Especially when that type of information is required to be at the top of your head at all times.
Sadly there is no data to back me up, but i wonder if mugging and other random crime is reduced by a functioning welfare system. This in that it removes the desperation for many people, leaving mostly addicts and the mentally ill as performers of such crimes.
Well the simple answer is no. The long answer is no. A welfare system generally shifts the types of crime that happen from base thefts to higher levels of crime. Though comparing north american to say european stats are difficult, because of the way people are handled within the system and the crime metrics are different.
Also crime falls into two general areas. Opportunity based, and generational. Opportunity based crimes fall into further categories such as risk vs opportunity, or chance vs thrill. Generational means that it's a part of the family growing up, and only when a person decides not to do it, does it change.
But to simply boil down your question? Does a welfare system reduce mugging and random crime? Not really. You only need to see the incidence reports in the UK which as a very generous welfare system, along with Germany and Holland. It actually becomes the new hobby.
Then why do so many people use facebook and use their real name?
Yep. Nothing quite like a quasi-binding non-elected government body dictating to a sovereign nation on what they should do on their internal affairs. You forgot to mention about them wanting to siphon off a few trillion euros and be immune from prosecution though.
Boy people still go on with that shit huh? So tell me something. There's this murder trial going on up here in Canada, in Ontario, in a city called Kingston. Heard of it? Maybe. It was on CNN today. Did you know that the only media outlet that's printed that they're muslim in the US was fox? Every media outlet, including the CBC in Canada printed that. It's like the majority of the media you guys have, fears printing the truth. Or they're afraid that telling you the truth about people is a bad thing.
Hey did they tell you that there was a bomb threat there today? Well most of them didn't, they just told you that it was evacuated because of a 'security' concern. But the police briefing to the media stated a bomb threat.
I can cite example after example, I'd say it's more a specific problem of political correctness trumping freedom of the press, and very few people standing up to it. Hell, you even see that during the WH press briefings, well if you ever watch them unedited.
Steam started trading last year. So I'm not sure what your complaint about steam is. Though other stuff is in the pipe still, but saying you can't sell it? No you can, it's just BBW still.
You have read the muslim brotherhoods statements of declaration right? You know the parts where they believe that there should be no peace with israel, there should be no peace with jews, that women have a specific role and should be relegated to the home. That sharia should be the highest law of the land, so on and so forth.
It's all right there, in front of you. On their own website.
Actually it's probably higher. Homosexually is rife in arab culture, they simply don't call it that. I'd guess around 40%.
No, it doesn't. These words *mean* things. Fascist doesn't mean "bad", and fundamentalist doesn't mean single party.
Really? Can you tell me of a a good religious theocracy that's been a benevolent dictatorship outside of the supposition believed to be true based on historical texts? Can you name a fascist government that hasn't murdered it's own people, simply to murder it's own people to keep them in line?
Words are also actions, actions are also ideas and ideals. Those are put into practice, and when put into practice without the temperament, horrific things are done. Our modern history in the last 600 years are a testament to these things. And in some cases, those things have been far worse by some groups then others. Don't be ignorant and try to play the fool by saying they're "just things."
They didn't elect dictatorship and fascism. They elected a backward fundamentalist religious government. There is a difference, even if neither is very good.
The difference between fascism and a fundamentalist religious government, is one uses religion as a pretext. The other uses the word of man. In both cases, they're the same thing, it's simply interpretation that defines how screwed up it will become.
And we remember what happens when you elect dictatorships and fascism don't we? Especially with groups that already espouse the destruction of another people and religion. I can count on one hand the number of benevolent dictatorships that we've seen in the last 300 years.
Sure, and those laws were over-turned, in time, and inplace. Let's not forget either that in all of those cases there were still fundamental freedoms that allowed them all to be tested against a foundational principal. In egypts case, much like malaysias for example, the highest law of the land being pushed is islamic, or 7th century sharia. Those were the highest laws of the land are religious.
It may have taken awhile for democratic countries to start running themselves well. But electing a group of people who's belief that walking backwards into the past, is a step forward is silly. Especially when the dictatorship, may have been oppressive, but allowed more freedom then what is coming down the pipe.
If you think the muslim brotherhood is moderate, you're fooling yourself. These are the same guys who hold the same beliefs as 50 years ago when they wanted to slap tents on women, and make them into second class citizens. They didn't change, they were banned. They held on to their ideals, and simply spread them among the populace.
Oh come on. The media elitists keep telling us that this arab spring is nothing but good stuff, and there's rainbows, and cookies, and everyone is going to hold hands. That's why in egypt they just elected a group of people which will be happily throwing the countries legal system back to the 13th-14th century, and quickly shoving women back to chattel status.
Oh...and the same thing is going on in libya. Sadly the people that believed this revolution stuff would be positive were so naive that it made me wonder if they'd ever left their home countries and wondered the world in the slightest.
I think the idea was the implied cruising altitude. Which is between 25,000 and 30,000ft in most cases.
That's nice. But legally since google operates in Canada, and Germany. They're still bound by the privacy laws of both countries, and in turn the EU privacy laws. In Canada, modifying the privacy terms requires that they contact you directly not by 'notification' by directly via your contact information which is provided. Otherwise the changes are considered null and void. Further, specific individual tracking across sites has further stipulations which have to be agreed to which the user may be allowed to optout of regardless of.
Failing to notify individuals of the change, means that they're in violation of the statue, and in turn violation of federal law. Regardless of what google thinks they're doing, outside of the US, in Canada, they'll be breaking the law.
Why shouldn't they be. In some countries, you know, outside of the US. Cross-product tracking is still...illegal, and requires written or verbal permission before a change like this can happen.
If the government failed to properly inform the public, yet they're still raming it though. Is that even legal in poland? I seem to remember something in their laws about that being pretty illegal after they got back to that whole democracy thing.
They sure want to go after those pirates. But their actions sure want to make me into a pirate. Guess that reverse psychology stuff does work...
Bell and Rogers have been controlling the CRTC though Konrad Von Frankenstin(yes I know not his name) for years, those of us involved in fighting for digital rights have seen it time and time again. The whole UBB fiasco was a direct result of his: "and these guys said..." mentality. He was replaced at the end of his term by the conservatives. Simply because he was doing what wasn't in the best interest of Canadians.
Despite all the whining and crying of people, and how they bitch and moan the the conservatives are evil people only out for corporate interests. So far, they're the only government we've had that's pushed for more competition in the markets. Wind mobile(when rogers and bell), tried to cockblock them for example, and block not only the spectrum bidding, but tried to block them out of the market because they weren't "canadian enough" yes we do have that on the books here(thanks liberals). Or when UBB came up, and the industry minister said: "We will overrule the CRTC on this issue if we don't feel it's in the best interest of consumers."
You'd watch Fox huh? No lambasting of all the other networks that are even worse like NPR, MSNBC, CBS? Oh well, if you're that blinded by partisanship you can only reap what you want.
Yeah. I believe the TSA in, and as much as if someone pissed on me and told me it was a gentle rain shower. You remember those strip searches, and how they didn't happen? Yeah. Those strip searches.