I might have to take a look at my ISP's agreement to see if there is anything about them being able to monitor my traffic...
Well, since your ISP won't have access to the box, they won't be monitoring your traffic (the FBI will though).
Putting the ISP in charge of monitoring seems a little safer, but then they'd be required to become law enforcement themselves; just like if Slashdot started removing posts at the request of M$.
The other ideas presented (encryption, etc) are good, but I think the best way to handle this scenario is to publicise it and maybe get congress involved (that always messes things up;). The more the public knows about this the more difficult it will be to implement.
All the libraries that I remember having been to during my youth had (and probably still do) the books divided into separate sections for adults and children. Children could still enter the adult section, but none of them cared to (at least from my observations).
However, the US seems to think that anything computer related is completly different from all current paradigms and therefor need new laws, rulings, and restrictions. The Internet is a different breed being global and all, but in most cases I shake my head and wonder why we don't just adopt/apply the current logic that we use for print, broadcast, and other information delivery methods. Sometimes we do need to re-evaluate the situation, usually because of the global factor, but most cases don't require much thought at all.
It's not necessarily their fault -- a voice vote can be called by a simply majority, and thus those that were opposed to both the DCMA and
voting by the normal means are grouped in with those that are truly to blame.
However, those that were opposed (if there were any) could have spoken up and pointed fingers at the majority members that requested a "voice (i.e. secret) vote" and voted in favor of the DCMA
From reading this thread, I get the impression that Americans can shoot anyone who breaks into their home, at least in some states. Is this correct?
I know that in Oregon it's only legal if they are committing criminal tresspass, threatening someone's life, or (ironically) about to committ arson. In order for criminal tresspass to happen they have to be notified that they are not welcome. So, if you enter my house and I ask you to leave and you refuse, yes I can use lethal force. However, I know of a case where someone did fire off a round after their "visitor" (who was also under a previous restraining order) refused to leave and the owner still got in trouble.
As far as criminal tresspass, I think if signs are posted with "No Tresspassing" and you cross them, you are in violation; but I'm not too sure on that one.
If so, it seems to be a good case of restricting access to guns.
If they're only going to hurt themselves, or a family member, isn't it better to NOT restrict access? If gun owners are such horrible people, then this "cleaning" of the gene pool should not be discouraged.
btw, I am a gun owner, but I'm not in favor of creating laws that act directly against Darwin Award winners
then pray explain why you're saying that the govt. can own nuclear weapons and tanks, but citizens should only own handguns and puny assault rifles.
Easy, the right to bear arms has been infringed.
If you are serious about fighting the US govt., I'd recommend you upgrade your arsenal with 10,000 nuclear warheads, a few hundred F-16s, a bunch of U2s, AWACS, and assorted chemical weapons.
Then how do you explain N. Vietnam? The most advanced weapons they had were mortars and human rocket launchers. That's right, certain soldiers would have a wooden box strapped to their back and no hair on the back of their head (some severe burns too, I'd imagine). One lesson I've gathered from the Vietnam experience is that determination to keep your home can go way beyond giant armies and high technology (in case you didn't know, France spent forever fighting them before the US showed up).
That's only after you've been arrested (along with right to attorney, etc). The fact is, you can be arrested for being silent (depending on the question). It can be regarded as obstructing justice/investigation. Ironically, you would be placed under arrest and given the right to remain silent.
When a cop confronts a protester wearing gear designed for carrying grenades and gas masks, that is what is known as "probably cause"
First of all, it's "probable cause".
Secondly, there is a difference between "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion". Wearing certain types of clothing doesn't fall in to either of these categories, but if you had to force it into one, it would be "reasonable suspicion" (which does not warrant a search).
You declined to provide identification when asked for it.
Some others in this discussion have pointed out that cops are people just like you and me and should be treated as such. Following that concept, if I were to stop you on the street and ask for your ID would you give it to me? There is no reason to give anyone your ID; unless you're just feeling extra generous and don't care what personal information you give to others.
If I appear suspicious because I don't feel like giving someone my ID, then so be it! I'd rather protect my rights than feel like I'm being bullied into actions that I care not to carry out.
Regrettably, in the hardware and software business, prices for off-the-shelf products often exceed the budget of enthusiasts. We're talking $100's to $1000's of dollars in most cases, especially for hardware.
Why leave it to enthusiasts? You already mentioned Consumer Reports; they obviously have enough money to purchase cars (all of which exceed $1000). Another example is Practical Sailor. Sailing equipment (much less the boats themselves) can easily exceed the price of computer hardware/software. Obviously a corporation of similar ilk, for computer related products only, is a better solution.Creating a company to regulate the reviewers would be much easier to corrupt than the status quo!
Go here to see charts and graphs of solar activity. You will also notice the little red box in the upper corner is displaying a "Storm!" happening right now. I noticed it doing the same earlier this week.
You're right, we should be complaining about the fact that our income tax is used to give us the illusion that our fuel is cheaper. Since most people don't know about this (like the gov't would WANT us to?) I expect the flames to start............ now!
Rudolf Deisel used hemp hurds as the base for his biomass component of deisel (which was replaced by petroleum after hemp was made illegal). The hurds are cellulose material that resides between the fibers and is very similar to petroleum cells because of their thick walls.
Vegetable oils (at least in the case of hemp) comes from the seed, a completely different component of the plant. The oil has an extreemly high viscosity rate, so it's good for lubrication, but not for fuel.
For hemp fuel to be made the hurds are put through pyrolysis (applying heat in the absence of oxygen). This creates a liquid, solid, and gas; all of which can be used as fuels (replacing coal, gasoline, and natural gas). When the liquid is distilled with methanol, you end up with a clean burning fuel that gives your car the same explosive power as an alcohol fuel racer. I haven't known too many alcohol fueled cars "gum up".
1. How does planting crops attribute to erosion? Since hemp has a long tap root, it does exactly the opposite.
2. soil nutrient depletion - Because of this long tap root, nutrients are brought to the surface of the soil. For this exact reason is why hemp has been known throughout history as a good rotational crop. Thomas Jefferson supported hemp for this very reason (comparing it to tobacco, which does depelete the soil).
3. fertilizers/pesticides - hemp is virtually immune to pests, requiring no pesticide. Also, 14-18 tall crops are easily acheived without fertilizer.
4. YOU CANNOT GROW CANNABIS IN HEMP FIELDS - The reason why is easily explained when you understand how marijuana is produced. To make "pot" you grow only female plants. Depriving them of male pollen is what creates the "bud" that people smoke. If you planted your marijuana plants in a hemp field you would end up with pollenized plants and have wasted your time.
Alcohol fueled cars are barely different than gasoline fueled cars. With a biomass base, it burns clean and relies only on new plants (compared to million-year-old plants;). Switching from a carbohydrate based system to a hydrocarbon system wouldn't increase prices that much at all.
Fuel would be much cheaper too since drilling and refining petroleum is waaaaaay more costly than growing plants and putting them through pyrolysis.
That last AC wasn't me (although I agree with him/her). I'll leave it up to you to educate yourself or remain ignorant. I'm not paid low enough to start teaching.
I was just using my experience as an example of how the law can be used to determine whether a place is public or private; not suggesting that the guy has anything to do with Oregon or petitioning.
It might not be so easy for eBay to win this one since the courts themselves won't want to set a precident that gets themselves in trouble (i.e. flooded with similar cases without being able to enforce adequately)
You apparently haven't heard the case of the town owned by a corporation (a big oil company) where they tried to get a lady to stop handing out religious leaflets. They claimed that since they owned the town that it was "private" and therefor could stop this person's right to peacefully assemble.
They were shot down by the supreme court because it was deemed that the public gathers there, opening it to laws governing public places. I never claimed that the petitioning was covered by the constitution (State or Federal), but it is protected by law even though it's on private property (because it ends up being a public place).
Before claiming that this is "untrue", I suggest looking at the petitioning laws in the State of Oregon.
Not in the State of Oregon. It's more polite to ask the person in charge, but if I start petitioning, they cannot leagally remove me (again, in Oregon).
It seems like this is the question that the courts will have to decide. Is eBay considered a public or private place?
At first it seems like a no-brainer. However, from my experience with petitioning, I have learned that small differences create large distinctions.
For instance, if I want to petition in front of a grocery store, I have to ask permission because it is considered to be a private area. On the other hand, I can petition at any mall because they are considered public (since they sell more than one type of item or something like that).
A local chain (Fred Meyer) which is a combination grocery/hardware/clothing/toy/garden/office/electr onics store found out that they cannot ask petitioners to leave since they fall under the same category as a mall; for selling more than one "category" of goods.
So... Is eBay a bunch of classified ads? Or a flea market?
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't Pat Buccannan say he would get rid of the FBI if he's elected?
I don't know about Pat, but I bet Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party is willing to remove any federal agency.
I might have to take a look at my ISP's agreement to see if there is anything about them being able to monitor my traffic...
;). The more the public knows about this the more difficult it will be to implement.
Well, since your ISP won't have access to the box, they won't be monitoring your traffic (the FBI will though).
Putting the ISP in charge of monitoring seems a little safer, but then they'd be required to become law enforcement themselves; just like if Slashdot started removing posts at the request of M$.
The other ideas presented (encryption, etc) are good, but I think the best way to handle this scenario is to publicise it and maybe get congress involved (that always messes things up
All the libraries that I remember having been to during my youth had (and probably still do) the books divided into separate sections for adults and children. Children could still enter the adult section, but none of them cared to (at least from my observations).
However, the US seems to think that anything computer related is completly different from all current paradigms and therefor need new laws, rulings, and restrictions. The Internet is a different breed being global and all, but in most cases I shake my head and wonder why we don't just adopt/apply the current logic that we use for print, broadcast, and other information delivery methods. Sometimes we do need to re-evaluate the situation, usually because of the global factor, but most cases don't require much thought at all.
It's not necessarily their fault -- a voice vote can be called by a simply majority, and thus those that were opposed to both the DCMA and voting by the normal means are grouped in with those that are truly to blame.
However, those that were opposed (if there were any) could have spoken up and pointed fingers at the majority members that requested a "voice (i.e. secret) vote" and voted in favor of the DCMA
for example Jerry's discomfort at his (Jewish) dentist making Jewish jokes.
That's becase Jerry is an anti-dentite!
If you're studying computers, entertainment, law, or sociology (and probably a few others) then you can leave it up and tell them that it's related.
Yea? Then how come I got a server error when I submitted my text? ;)
From reading this thread, I get the impression that Americans can shoot anyone who breaks into their home, at least in some states. Is this correct?
I know that in Oregon it's only legal if they are committing criminal tresspass, threatening someone's life, or (ironically) about to committ arson. In order for criminal tresspass to happen they have to be notified that they are not welcome. So, if you enter my house and I ask you to leave and you refuse, yes I can use lethal force. However, I know of a case where someone did fire off a round after their "visitor" (who was also under a previous restraining order) refused to leave and the owner still got in trouble.
As far as criminal tresspass, I think if signs are posted with "No Tresspassing" and you cross them, you are in violation; but I'm not too sure on that one.
If so, it seems to be a good case of restricting access to guns.
If they're only going to hurt themselves, or a family member, isn't it better to NOT restrict access? If gun owners are such horrible people, then this "cleaning" of the gene pool should not be discouraged.
btw, I am a gun owner, but I'm not in favor of creating laws that act directly against Darwin Award winners
then pray explain why you're saying that the govt. can own nuclear weapons and tanks, but citizens should only own handguns and puny assault rifles.
Easy, the right to bear arms has been infringed.
If you are serious about fighting the US govt., I'd recommend you upgrade your arsenal with 10,000 nuclear warheads, a few hundred F-16s, a bunch of U2s, AWACS, and assorted chemical weapons.
Then how do you explain N. Vietnam? The most advanced weapons they had were mortars and human rocket launchers. That's right, certain soldiers would have a wooden box strapped to their back and no hair on the back of their head (some severe burns too, I'd imagine). One lesson I've gathered from the Vietnam experience is that determination to keep your home can go way beyond giant armies and high technology (in case you didn't know, France spent forever fighting them before the US showed up).
...You have the right to remain silent...
That's only after you've been arrested (along with right to attorney, etc). The fact is, you can be arrested for being silent (depending on the question). It can be regarded as obstructing justice/investigation. Ironically, you would be placed under arrest and given the right to remain silent.
When a cop confronts a protester wearing gear designed for carrying grenades and gas masks, that is what is known as "probably cause"
First of all, it's "probable cause".
Secondly, there is a difference between "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion". Wearing certain types of clothing doesn't fall in to either of these categories, but if you had to force it into one, it would be "reasonable suspicion" (which does not warrant a search).
You declined to provide identification when asked for it.
Some others in this discussion have pointed out that cops are people just like you and me and should be treated as such. Following that concept, if I were to stop you on the street and ask for your ID would you give it to me? There is no reason to give anyone your ID; unless you're just feeling extra generous and don't care what personal information you give to others.
If I appear suspicious because I don't feel like giving someone my ID, then so be it! I'd rather protect my rights than feel like I'm being bullied into actions that I care not to carry out.
Regrettably, in the hardware and software business, prices for off-the-shelf products often exceed the budget of enthusiasts. We're talking $100's to $1000's of dollars in most cases, especially for hardware.
Why leave it to enthusiasts? You already mentioned Consumer Reports; they obviously have enough money to purchase cars (all of which exceed $1000). Another example is Practical Sailor. Sailing equipment (much less the boats themselves) can easily exceed the price of computer hardware/software. Obviously a corporation of similar ilk, for computer related products only, is a better solution.Creating a company to regulate the reviewers would be much easier to corrupt than the status quo!
Go here to see charts and graphs of solar activity. You will also notice the little red box in the upper corner is displaying a "Storm!" happening right now. I noticed it doing the same earlier this week.
The USA is a republic. Unless there was a vote on the meth/bankruptcy bill and I missed it.
You're right, we should be complaining about the fact that our income tax is used to give us the illusion that our fuel is cheaper. Since most people don't know about this (like the gov't would WANT us to?) I expect the flames to start...... ...... now!
Rudolf Deisel used hemp hurds as the base for his biomass component of deisel (which was replaced by petroleum after hemp was made illegal). The hurds are cellulose material that resides between the fibers and is very similar to petroleum cells because of their thick walls.
Vegetable oils (at least in the case of hemp) comes from the seed, a completely different component of the plant. The oil has an extreemly high viscosity rate, so it's good for lubrication, but not for fuel.
For hemp fuel to be made the hurds are put through pyrolysis (applying heat in the absence of oxygen). This creates a liquid, solid, and gas; all of which can be used as fuels (replacing coal, gasoline, and natural gas). When the liquid is distilled with methanol, you end up with a clean burning fuel that gives your car the same explosive power as an alcohol fuel racer. I haven't known too many alcohol fueled cars "gum up".
Excuse me?
1. How does planting crops attribute to erosion? Since hemp has a long tap root, it does exactly the opposite.
2. soil nutrient depletion - Because of this long tap root, nutrients are brought to the surface of the soil. For this exact reason is why hemp has been known throughout history as a good rotational crop. Thomas Jefferson supported hemp for this very reason (comparing it to tobacco, which does depelete the soil).
3. fertilizers/pesticides - hemp is virtually immune to pests, requiring no pesticide. Also, 14-18 tall crops are easily acheived without fertilizer.
4. YOU CANNOT GROW CANNABIS IN HEMP FIELDS - The reason why is easily explained when you understand how marijuana is produced. To make "pot" you grow only female plants. Depriving them of male pollen is what creates the "bud" that people smoke. If you planted your marijuana plants in a hemp field you would end up with pollenized plants and have wasted your time.
Alcohol fueled cars are barely different than gasoline fueled cars. With a biomass base, it burns clean and relies only on new plants (compared to million-year-old plants ;). Switching from a carbohydrate based system to a hydrocarbon system wouldn't increase prices that much at all.
Fuel would be much cheaper too since drilling and refining petroleum is waaaaaay more costly than growing plants and putting them through pyrolysis.
That last AC wasn't me (although I agree with him/her). I'll leave it up to you to educate yourself or remain ignorant. I'm not paid low enough to start teaching.
I was just using my experience as an example of how the law can be used to determine whether a place is public or private; not suggesting that the guy has anything to do with Oregon or petitioning.
It might not be so easy for eBay to win this one since the courts themselves won't want to set a precident that gets themselves in trouble (i.e. flooded with similar cases without being able to enforce adequately)
You apparently haven't heard the case of the town owned by a corporation (a big oil company) where they tried to get a lady to stop handing out religious leaflets. They claimed that since they owned the town that it was "private" and therefor could stop this person's right to peacefully assemble.
They were shot down by the supreme court because it was deemed that the public gathers there, opening it to laws governing public places. I never claimed that the petitioning was covered by the constitution (State or Federal), but it is protected by law even though it's on private property (because it ends up being a public place).
Before claiming that this is "untrue", I suggest looking at the petitioning laws in the State of Oregon.
Not in the State of Oregon. It's more polite to ask the person in charge, but if I start petitioning, they cannot leagally remove me (again, in Oregon).
It seems like this is the question that the courts will have to decide. Is eBay considered a public or private place?
r onics store found out that they cannot ask petitioners to leave since they fall under the same category as a mall; for selling more than one "category" of goods.
At first it seems like a no-brainer. However, from my experience with petitioning, I have learned that small differences create large distinctions.
For instance, if I want to petition in front of a grocery store, I have to ask permission because it is considered to be a private area. On the other hand, I can petition at any mall because they are considered public (since they sell more than one type of item or something like that).
A local chain (Fred Meyer) which is a combination grocery/hardware/clothing/toy/garden/office/elect
So... Is eBay a bunch of classified ads? Or a flea market?