To be equally pedantic, maintaining an unstable equilibrium requires expenditure of energy only if disturbed (and I addressed this in a separate sub-thread), though disturbance is expected to happen. But "at the appropriate depth" as I wrote, it does not need to expend energy. Staying there, of course, is a practical impossibility.
Right, but this is a point of unstable equilibrium: if they rise too high, they will have to expend effort to return to neutral buoyancy depth, and if they dive too deep, they will have to expend effort to rise again. Still, if the alternative is having to prevent one's self from sinking all the time, it's probably less work.
Also, the deeper they want to hover, the harder they have to struggle to get there.
The argonaut traps air, and then forcefully descends to depth. So long as it has not reached the appropriate depth, it has to keep thrusting itself downward with it's jet, but once there, it is neutrally buoyant and no further expenditure of energy is required.
It if can't get deep enough, then ultimately it will tire and the buoyancy will bring it to the surface again.
Oh, Alice having "no right" to source above, means she has no cause of action to demand it. She does have a right to have it if she obtains it through someone other than Bill.
Basically, if I say you can do something, and you do it, you can do so with impunity: I can't change my mind after the fact unless I rescind my permission. But, if I promise you something (future delivery of source on demand under GPL2 3(b)), and you don't pay me consideration, you can't enforce that promise. Others, however, may.
In fact, GPL has specific sanctions for those that do not redistribute according to the terms of the license: their right to future redistribution can be explicitly rescinded. Further, statutory sanctions under copyright violation can also apply.
That's easy. Bill gave Alice a license which gave her certain rights, including the right to demand source from Bill. She has a cause of action if he refuses under contract law (IF money or other "consideration" changed hands making it a binding contract).
Basically. Bill's rights stem from his copyright, and Alice's rights stem from the license Bill gave her.
Now, because Bill wrote the code all by himself, he is not obliged to license it to Alice under those terms. In fact, he can license it to Alice under restrictive terms, and to others under the GPL, and Alice could not demand he provide her source because her license did not give her that right. Further, she couldn't demand anyone who DID license the code under the GPL give her source either because they did not distribute to her!
Of course, if distribution is widespread, Alice might be able to get a copy of the source eventually, but she has no right to it.
Now, lets say Bill licensed the code to Alice under GPL2 3(b) because he had to in order to distribute to her as a "derived work" of someone else's GPL2 licensed code and no money changed hands. It would be questionable if Alice had a cause of action against Bill for violating the license. But, the copyright holders would have a cause of action against Bill for violating their copyright even if no money changed hands when their code was distributed to Bill, because his right to redistribute derived works was restricted by the license he got.
So, you can't violate a copyright without a license (which does not require consideration), but you can't enforce a license you receive without having paid consideration for it. One can freely give up rights without consideration, but one can not enforce rights gained unless they paid consideration. At least that's as far as my NAL understanding of contract law goes (there being an implied contract when the license is granted in exchange for money or other consideration).
Clearly if the distributer is the copyright holder, yes, no one other than him can enforce the license, and, as the copyright holder, he can relicense as he wishes. So, the paradox of being in violation of his own license does not apply.
However, where one combines code with GPL2 code, and distributes the combination, one MUST distribute under the terms of GPL2, and the copyright holders of the OTHER parts of the combination can enforce the license on the distributer.
This holds for ALL (re)distributors.
So, if C adds code to GPL2 code copywrighten by A and B, and distributes the result on Jan 1, 2010, he must include an offer good to Dec 31., 2012 to provide source to all comers who show they have binaries and a copy of C's offer. This is because GPL2 requires C's offer to be transferrable.
Now, if D further redistributes binaries received from C, he must either (a) provide source (which he got by holding C to his offer), or (b) provide his own offer good for three years from when D distributed (and this is true for every time D distributes), or (c) transfer C's offer (and only if D's distribution is non-commercial).
I agree that if the offer does not specify an expiration date, determining what it is requires determining when the distribution occurred. While a small burden, it is not impossible to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence.
This can actually be a pain in some cases where commercial interests want to distribute code licensed necessarily under the GPL, but have not yet developed the means to neatly package source and a convenient build mechanism. The classic example is a firm distributing GPL works in progress to contractors.
I asked RMS about that situation, and his position was that if the contractors were using their own computers and not computers provided by the firm that hired them, it was considered distribution. Neither of us is a lawyer, but I think that position is correct.
I've also been in positions where recipients of GPL code did not want source and we did not want to provide an offer (to comply with the GPL) because we did not like the transferability provisions. In the end we shipped them a CD and offered to pay return shipping for them to send it back to us at their discretion.
If you provide binaries and source, then you are correct.
But, if you provide binaries and an offer of source that offer is transferable. Then, anyone who gets binaries from anyone else can demand source from you.
O.K. So the exception is for non-commercial redistribution under 2(c) if one received it under 2(b).
2(b) is a bugaboo for many commercial interests: they generally don't mind providing source on demand, but prefer to only have to do it to those to whom they have licensed binaries and not all comers as 2(b) allows.
GPL 3 is more liberal and business friendly in this regard.
You have to distribute source with binaries or offer to provide source to anyone who asks, good for three years. (at least for GPL 2). There is a small exception for academic institutions to only have to provide source to direct recipients of binaries, IIRC. Been a while since I read the GPL.
Actually no, most "child protection" laws are civil laws. This means that children can be removed from homes, and parents punished for "abuse" or "neglect" without due process of law. Many people do not understand this and wonder why their children are removed without them being found guilty of any crime.
Realize that you have the right to due process prior to being deprived of life or liberty. But, one's children do not fall into either category. The best constitutional argument. I would think, would be violating a child's rights to associate with their parents, but as far as I know, such an argument has not been made.
Similarly, to give schools even more power over children is best served by civil laws and actions, and not criminal ones: the standards of evidence are lower (heresay is permissible, and preponderance is sufficient, instead of a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt").
A free site with a WYSIWYG editor does not qualify, as few would let you configure the necessary back end data base, and peer to peer communication protocols, but more importantly, it would violate the principle of hosting your own server to retain control.
I support hosted social networking peers that remain peers are better in the control aspect from one site that controls all content and knows all network relationships, but I was thinking more of a peer app that could be hosted on a server one controls one's self. Such apps could, of course, be commercial, or more likely "free", and supported by advertising when using them. (We are starting to see this in some Android-based phone apps.)
Of course, ad-supported apps do result in privacy issues, but if one provides ad-categories at time of registration, targeted advertising becomes much more interesting: you get ad notifications of stuff you actually are interested in (at your discretion). One just has to either subscribe to an app, or provide some number of ad catagories.
The interesting thing is that while ad subscriptions will come from IP addresses, necessarily binding them to a particular individual would require the cooperation of the ISP (a small privacy "speed bump", I suppose, but a speed bump none the less).
But all that involves a lot of work. Facebook got popular because it made it easy.
Exactly. Setting up a web site, email server, etc. is non-trivial. Though, if someone designed a turnkey system to do that, it might become popular (Think of what MythTV does for roll your own DVRs, though it is still far from turnkey).
But, there is a problem.
Because Facebook has all the data on all participants, it can reflect that to each individual one. If a "friend" posts a status update, you see it right away. You don't have to "poll" their server to get it. I suppose the server could support a "push model" to let all friends know when a status update occurs, but this runs into the problem of connectivity between servers. Further, imaging wanting to get current photos of all your "friends" and having to hit all their servers. Having all the data in one place provides a reliability that reduces the need for caching, push updates, and network bandwidth. Of course, it is also a single point of failure and control, as much as it is one of convenience.
Clearly, this can be mitigated with a careful combination of caching, push notifications, and data pulls.
But, the important thing is to settle on a data schema and interchange protocol as well as have turnkey peers to make it work.
The Internet is devolving from a distributed system of peers to a client to centralized server model because of convenience for the masses.
I run my own SMTP server for sinking email. Even for something that simple, it's a bit of a hassle, what with keeping it up 24x7, making sure it doesn't relay, etc. Granted, email retries help with downtime, but that's an accident of email originally designed to accommodate systems with transient connectivity,
The way to return to a peer to peer model of networking is to make the supplying of services by the masses easy. And that requires generally "mostly on" connectivity. We generally don't see that, or can rely on it, with PCs or Internet appliances. Many people turn them off when not in use, The place where this sort of thing does work is in automatic updates of set top boxes (and, updates of available software versions when various linux-based distros check), basically things that are online 24x7. So, for this to work, we need ubiquitous open computing platforms that are online essentially all the time. A Set top box is a perfect example.
In this regard, I think an Android-based set top box would be an ideal start. Not so much because I think Android (and, by extension, Java) is an ideal platform, but because it is gaining deployment share, starting in the cell phone market. In fact, it would make sense to the client-side of such distributed applications to be available for portable computing devices, and both client- and server-sides on tethered always on stationary devices. So, when a Facebook-like app user wanted to check his or her page from a mobile device, he or she would connect to their own home server.
That's what I was originally thinking. If they are sold as goods in other contexts (say media over the counter at a retail outlet, or provided by the vendor on media), then the fact that the exact same thing can be sold in a manner that does not rely on anything physical should not change the fact that it is a good.
Look, it's not the packaging you're buying: if the box the "retail" version came in was printed in the "wrong" language for your locale, would you have a case under the Sale of Goods Act? Methinks no. But, if the software did nothing remotely similar to what it was purported to do (say a spreadsheet instead of a word processor), you would. So, the lack of packaging or media should not matter.
Does the "purchase" somehow get "erased" if I download AFTER providing my billing information? Do I get a credit after I pay you and THEN download?
What part of "this makes no sense" does the court not get?
I can understand for the cases of a download of software when no money changes hands (and indeed, this helps those of us who want to provide code free of charge with no warranty attached -- use at you own risk). But, it makes no sense if money has changed hands.
Yup. Remember that an injured soldier typically takes three soldiers to remove him/her, whereas a dead soldier takes one. Injured soldiers are a real drain on tactical effectiveness, unless one accepts the premise that it is best to just let them die or "put them out of their misery" so the mission can continue with the least loss of effectiveness. I submit that that may be tactically effective, but (a) unacceptably brutal, and (b) strategically ineffective unless one can sustain a war of attrition.
Rapid treatment not only saves lives (and provides a soldier to live to fight another day), but helps minimize the "expense" of triage and evac.
No, it's porn if it is "evil", for some definition of "evil", from "pornos" meaning, you guessed it, "evil". Pornography means "evil writing", and I think it's reasonable to interpret "writing" liberally, in the same way that we interpret "speech" to include photographs, signs, the written word, artistic expression, etc. In fact, much of what many consider pornography is protected speech under First Amendment grounds.
But, that misses the greater point here: this man was not doing his job, for which he is paid by taxpayers.
The Flag is never 'burned'. It is retired by having the stripes cut from the field and each burned. Some go so far as to cut out each star, but others retort that the union of states should never be severed. One never retires the Flag by burning it intact.
Well, not all women do that. However, the feminist-driven laws are designed to encourage many to do so.
My wife was not happy in the marriage, and, after 14-1/2 years neither was I: she was actively trashing the home. However, having "made my choice", I honored my marriage vows and put up with it. I did, however, deny her sex so long as she did not clean up after herself to the point of actively damaging what I provided for us. I can be a stubborn fuck if I want and figured if women can pull that stunt to get what they want, so can men. Not surprisingly, this drive her to cheat, and gave me the justification for divorce. (I didn't need "grounds", living in a "no-fault" state, but I wanted them anyway, from a moral standpoint.)
She has since slid into poverty: losing the house I left her (well, she destroyed it far faster after the divorce), and costing me a great deal of money in post divorce legal proceedings. Alimony ended 12/2009. She lives on less than $1600/month child support (two kids), and one of those kids has run away to stay with me. She refuses to work, and is not eligible for welfare. That support money is insufficient to support our kids once she pays her living expenses so I provide anything they need: effectively paying support twice. But, my kids will not suffer because of financial disputes between us.
I have been advised that, yes, she intends to "destroy" me, regardless of the consequences for her. Neither of our children are in school, and she has let the younger one shoot his older sister. Still, gaining custody is an uphill battle.
Given the present legal climate, yes, marriage and fatherhood are extremely dangerous propositions for a man, and divorce a strong predictor of incarceration. Since the divorce my net worth has dropped about $250,000 because of her actions and my need to respond to them.
Possibly, but I don't think you could prove that hypothesis: that the legal system is inherently corrupt. Corruptible? Oh, certainly! Any concentration of power is rife for corruption over time. Government is a perfect example.
The legal system, like any system, is hackable. And, those bent on corruption do the hacking.
I am in the process of seeking custody of my kids, and possible pending criminal charges would have hurt my changes MUCH MORE than a disorderly conduct conviction, though both are not good: innocent until proven guilty means squat in a civil (custody) case. It was a strategic decision based on advice by counsel.
I was out of jail on bail, and because of that they were not charging me. But, they were not willing to dismiss the charges.
Hell yes, if it weren't for my kids, I'd be all "bring it on!" And, while you're at it, you can feed, clothe, and house me at your expense. I'll sit out the 60 days waiting for trial.
What DID piss me off was that the public defender had stipulated to probable cause despite the fact that I had hired my own attorney (who was two minutes late to my probable cause hearing). I was tempted to assert self-representation, if only to motion for a continuance until my attorney appeared, but as about 30 of us were present for an "en masse" probable cause hearing, the judge told us to "shut up." When my attorney did show up, we did get a continuance to set bail since my address was not verified, which would mean a very high bail. We got it, but as it was Friday, I would end up spending the weekend in jail. Bail hearing was continued to Monday, at 13:00, set at 13:01, and posted at 13:02. I was released at 19:00. About 5 minutes after the continence was granted, my address verification came in, but it was too late: I'd have to wait until Monday.
What's telling was my sentence. Usually, with no priors, on a non-violent offense and a guilty plea, the judge sets a modest fine, a sentence with credit for time served, and the rest suspended (i.e. keep out of trouble for two years). In my case, the entire sentence was suspended. Apparently, that's "code" for "hint, hint, nudge, nudge: he pled guilty only to close the case faster".
Was I actually guilty of disorderly conduct? I think so. Without going into details, in WA, one is guilty of disorderly conduct if one acts in a manner that might cause someone to assault them. In my case, I was preventing my son, who was having a tantrum, from running into a highway, by restraining him with minimal force. Someone might think I was kidnapping him and try to intervene. His mother alleged a prior injury was caused by my restraint, and I was arrested for felony assault.
Slashdot Mirror
To be equally pedantic, maintaining an unstable equilibrium requires expenditure of energy only if disturbed (and I addressed this in a separate sub-thread), though disturbance is expected to happen. But "at the appropriate depth" as I wrote, it does not need to expend energy. Staying there, of course, is a practical impossibility.
It grows back: "Males generally form a new hectocotylus in each new season."
Right, but this is a point of unstable equilibrium: if they rise too high, they will have to expend effort to return to neutral buoyancy depth, and if they dive too deep, they will have to expend effort to rise again. Still, if the alternative is having to prevent one's self from sinking all the time, it's probably less work.
Also, the deeper they want to hover, the harder they have to struggle to get there.
Damn. Its, not "it's", above.
Nope.
The argonaut traps air, and then forcefully descends to depth. So long as it has not reached the appropriate depth, it has to keep thrusting itself downward with it's jet, but once there, it is neutrally buoyant and no further expenditure of energy is required.
It if can't get deep enough, then ultimately it will tire and the buoyancy will bring it to the surface again.
Oh, Alice having "no right" to source above, means she has no cause of action to demand it. She does have a right to have it if she obtains it through someone other than Bill.
Basically, if I say you can do something, and you do it, you can do so with impunity: I can't change my mind after the fact unless I rescind my permission. But, if I promise you something (future delivery of source on demand under GPL2 3(b)), and you don't pay me consideration, you can't enforce that promise. Others, however, may.
In fact, GPL has specific sanctions for those that do not redistribute according to the terms of the license: their right to future redistribution can be explicitly rescinded. Further, statutory sanctions under copyright violation can also apply.
That's easy. Bill gave Alice a license which gave her certain rights, including the right to demand source from Bill. She has a cause of action if he refuses under contract law (IF money or other "consideration" changed hands making it a binding contract).
Basically. Bill's rights stem from his copyright, and Alice's rights stem from the license Bill gave her.
Now, because Bill wrote the code all by himself, he is not obliged to license it to Alice under those terms. In fact, he can license it to Alice under restrictive terms, and to others under the GPL, and Alice could not demand he provide her source because her license did not give her that right. Further, she couldn't demand anyone who DID license the code under the GPL give her source either because they did not distribute to her!
Of course, if distribution is widespread, Alice might be able to get a copy of the source eventually, but she has no right to it.
Now, lets say Bill licensed the code to Alice under GPL2 3(b) because he had to in order to distribute to her as a "derived work" of someone else's GPL2 licensed code and no money changed hands. It would be questionable if Alice had a cause of action against Bill for violating the license. But, the copyright holders would have a cause of action against Bill for violating their copyright even if no money changed hands when their code was distributed to Bill, because his right to redistribute derived works was restricted by the license he got.
So, you can't violate a copyright without a license (which does not require consideration), but you can't enforce a license you receive without having paid consideration for it. One can freely give up rights without consideration, but one can not enforce rights gained unless they paid consideration. At least that's as far as my NAL understanding of contract law goes (there being an implied contract when the license is granted in exchange for money or other consideration).
Yes, GPL2 3(b).
Clearly if the distributer is the copyright holder, yes, no one other than him can enforce the license, and, as the copyright holder, he can relicense as he wishes. So, the paradox of being in violation of his own license does not apply.
However, where one combines code with GPL2 code, and distributes the combination, one MUST distribute under the terms of GPL2, and the copyright holders of the OTHER parts of the combination can enforce the license on the distributer.
This holds for ALL (re)distributors.
So, if C adds code to GPL2 code copywrighten by A and B, and distributes the result on Jan 1, 2010, he must include an offer good to Dec 31., 2012 to provide source to all comers who show they have binaries and a copy of C's offer. This is because GPL2 requires C's offer to be transferrable.
Now, if D further redistributes binaries received from C, he must either (a) provide source (which he got by holding C to his offer), or (b) provide his own offer good for three years from when D distributed (and this is true for every time D distributes), or (c) transfer C's offer (and only if D's distribution is non-commercial).
I agree that if the offer does not specify an expiration date, determining what it is requires determining when the distribution occurred. While a small burden, it is not impossible to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence.
This can actually be a pain in some cases where commercial interests want to distribute code licensed necessarily under the GPL, but have not yet developed the means to neatly package source and a convenient build mechanism. The classic example is a firm distributing GPL works in progress to contractors.
I asked RMS about that situation, and his position was that if the contractors were using their own computers and not computers provided by the firm that hired them, it was considered distribution. Neither of us is a lawyer, but I think that position is correct.
I've also been in positions where recipients of GPL code did not want source and we did not want to provide an offer (to comply with the GPL) because we did not like the transferability provisions. In the end we shipped them a CD and offered to pay return shipping for them to send it back to us at their discretion.
No. You read GPL 2 2(b) incorrectly.
If you provide binaries and source, then you are correct.
But, if you provide binaries and an offer of source that offer is transferable. Then, anyone who gets binaries from anyone else can demand source from you.
O.K. So the exception is for non-commercial redistribution under 2(c) if one received it under 2(b).
2(b) is a bugaboo for many commercial interests: they generally don't mind providing source on demand, but prefer to only have to do it to those to whom they have licensed binaries and not all comers as 2(b) allows.
GPL 3 is more liberal and business friendly in this regard.
You have to distribute source with binaries or offer to provide source to anyone who asks, good for three years. (at least for GPL 2). There is a small exception for academic institutions to only have to provide source to direct recipients of binaries, IIRC. Been a while since I read the GPL.
Actually no, most "child protection" laws are civil laws. This means that children can be removed from homes, and parents punished for "abuse" or "neglect" without due process of law. Many people do not understand this and wonder why their children are removed without them being found guilty of any crime.
Realize that you have the right to due process prior to being deprived of life or liberty. But, one's children do not fall into either category. The best constitutional argument. I would think, would be violating a child's rights to associate with their parents, but as far as I know, such an argument has not been made.
Similarly, to give schools even more power over children is best served by civil laws and actions, and not criminal ones: the standards of evidence are lower (heresay is permissible, and preponderance is sufficient, instead of a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt").
A free site with a WYSIWYG editor does not qualify, as few would let you configure the necessary back end data base, and peer to peer communication protocols, but more importantly, it would violate the principle of hosting your own server to retain control.
I support hosted social networking peers that remain peers are better in the control aspect from one site that controls all content and knows all network relationships, but I was thinking more of a peer app that could be hosted on a server one controls one's self. Such apps could, of course, be commercial, or more likely "free", and supported by advertising when using them. (We are starting to see this in some Android-based phone apps.)
Of course, ad-supported apps do result in privacy issues, but if one provides ad-categories at time of registration, targeted advertising becomes much more interesting: you get ad notifications of stuff you actually are interested in (at your discretion). One just has to either subscribe to an app, or provide some number of ad catagories.
The interesting thing is that while ad subscriptions will come from IP addresses, necessarily binding them to a particular individual would require the cooperation of the ISP (a small privacy "speed bump", I suppose, but a speed bump none the less).
But all that involves a lot of work. Facebook got popular because it made it easy.
Exactly. Setting up a web site, email server, etc. is non-trivial. Though, if someone designed a turnkey system to do that, it might become popular (Think of what MythTV does for roll your own DVRs, though it is still far from turnkey).
But, there is a problem.
Because Facebook has all the data on all participants, it can reflect that to each individual one. If a "friend" posts a status update, you see it right away. You don't have to "poll" their server to get it. I suppose the server could support a "push model" to let all friends know when a status update occurs, but this runs into the problem of connectivity between servers. Further, imaging wanting to get current photos of all your "friends" and having to hit all their servers. Having all the data in one place provides a reliability that reduces the need for caching, push updates, and network bandwidth. Of course, it is also a single point of failure and control, as much as it is one of convenience.
Clearly, this can be mitigated with a careful combination of caching, push notifications, and data pulls.
But, the important thing is to settle on a data schema and interchange protocol as well as have turnkey peers to make it work.
The Internet is devolving from a distributed system of peers to a client to centralized server model because of convenience for the masses.
I run my own SMTP server for sinking email. Even for something that simple, it's a bit of a hassle, what with keeping it up 24x7, making sure it doesn't relay, etc. Granted, email retries help with downtime, but that's an accident of email originally designed to accommodate systems with transient connectivity,
The way to return to a peer to peer model of networking is to make the supplying of services by the masses easy. And that requires generally "mostly on" connectivity. We generally don't see that, or can rely on it, with PCs or Internet appliances. Many people turn them off when not in use, The place where this sort of thing does work is in automatic updates of set top boxes (and, updates of available software versions when various linux-based distros check), basically things that are online 24x7. So, for this to work, we need ubiquitous open computing platforms that are online essentially all the time. A Set top box is a perfect example.
In this regard, I think an Android-based set top box would be an ideal start. Not so much because I think Android (and, by extension, Java) is an ideal platform, but because it is gaining deployment share, starting in the cell phone market. In fact, it would make sense to the client-side of such distributed applications to be available for portable computing devices, and both client- and server-sides on tethered always on stationary devices. So, when a Facebook-like app user wanted to check his or her page from a mobile device, he or she would connect to their own home server.
That's what I was originally thinking. If they are sold as goods in other contexts (say media over the counter at a retail outlet, or provided by the vendor on media), then the fact that the exact same thing can be sold in a manner that does not rely on anything physical should not change the fact that it is a good.
Look, it's not the packaging you're buying: if the box the "retail" version came in was printed in the "wrong" language for your locale, would you have a case under the Sale of Goods Act? Methinks no. But, if the software did nothing remotely similar to what it was purported to do (say a spreadsheet instead of a word processor), you would. So, the lack of packaging or media should not matter.
The judge was plain lazy.
Well, since Australia used to be a penal colony, that kind of makes some kind of twisted sense.
Does the "purchase" somehow get "erased" if I download AFTER providing my billing information? Do I get a credit after I pay you and THEN download?
What part of "this makes no sense" does the court not get?
I can understand for the cases of a download of software when no money changes hands (and indeed, this helps those of us who want to provide code free of charge with no warranty attached -- use at you own risk). But, it makes no sense if money has changed hands.
Yup. Remember that an injured soldier typically takes three soldiers to remove him/her, whereas a dead soldier takes one. Injured soldiers are a real drain on tactical effectiveness, unless one accepts the premise that it is best to just let them die or "put them out of their misery" so the mission can continue with the least loss of effectiveness. I submit that that may be tactically effective, but (a) unacceptably brutal, and (b) strategically ineffective unless one can sustain a war of attrition.
Rapid treatment not only saves lives (and provides a soldier to live to fight another day), but helps minimize the "expense" of triage and evac.
As others have pointed out. I stand corrected.
No, it's porn if it is "evil", for some definition of "evil", from "pornos" meaning, you guessed it, "evil". Pornography means "evil writing", and I think it's reasonable to interpret "writing" liberally, in the same way that we interpret "speech" to include photographs, signs, the written word, artistic expression, etc. In fact, much of what many consider pornography is protected speech under First Amendment grounds.
But, that misses the greater point here: this man was not doing his job, for which he is paid by taxpayers.
The Flag is never 'burned'. It is retired by having the stripes cut from the field and each burned. Some go so far as to cut out each star, but others retort that the union of states should never be severed. One never retires the Flag by burning it intact.
My wife was not happy in the marriage, and, after 14-1/2 years neither was I: she was actively trashing the home. However, having "made my choice", I honored my marriage vows and put up with it. I did, however, deny her sex so long as she did not clean up after herself to the point of actively damaging what I provided for us. I can be a stubborn fuck if I want and figured if women can pull that stunt to get what they want, so can men. Not surprisingly, this drive her to cheat, and gave me the justification for divorce. (I didn't need "grounds", living in a "no-fault" state, but I wanted them anyway, from a moral standpoint.)
She has since slid into poverty: losing the house I left her (well, she destroyed it far faster after the divorce), and costing me a great deal of money in post divorce legal proceedings. Alimony ended 12/2009. She lives on less than $1600/month child support (two kids), and one of those kids has run away to stay with me. She refuses to work, and is not eligible for welfare. That support money is insufficient to support our kids once she pays her living expenses so I provide anything they need: effectively paying support twice. But, my kids will not suffer because of financial disputes between us.
I have been advised that, yes, she intends to "destroy" me, regardless of the consequences for her. Neither of our children are in school, and she has let the younger one shoot his older sister. Still, gaining custody is an uphill battle.
Given the present legal climate, yes, marriage and fatherhood are extremely dangerous propositions for a man, and divorce a strong predictor of incarceration. Since the divorce my net worth has dropped about $250,000 because of her actions and my need to respond to them.
The legal system, like any system, is hackable. And, those bent on corruption do the hacking.
I was out of jail on bail, and because of that they were not charging me. But, they were not willing to dismiss the charges.
Hell yes, if it weren't for my kids, I'd be all "bring it on!" And, while you're at it, you can feed, clothe, and house me at your expense. I'll sit out the 60 days waiting for trial.
What DID piss me off was that the public defender had stipulated to probable cause despite the fact that I had hired my own attorney (who was two minutes late to my probable cause hearing). I was tempted to assert self-representation, if only to motion for a continuance until my attorney appeared, but as about 30 of us were present for an "en masse" probable cause hearing, the judge told us to "shut up." When my attorney did show up, we did get a continuance to set bail since my address was not verified, which would mean a very high bail. We got it, but as it was Friday, I would end up spending the weekend in jail. Bail hearing was continued to Monday, at 13:00, set at 13:01, and posted at 13:02. I was released at 19:00. About 5 minutes after the continence was granted, my address verification came in, but it was too late: I'd have to wait until Monday.
What's telling was my sentence. Usually, with no priors, on a non-violent offense and a guilty plea, the judge sets a modest fine, a sentence with credit for time served, and the rest suspended (i.e. keep out of trouble for two years). In my case, the entire sentence was suspended. Apparently, that's "code" for "hint, hint, nudge, nudge: he pled guilty only to close the case faster".
Was I actually guilty of disorderly conduct? I think so. Without going into details, in WA, one is guilty of disorderly conduct if one acts in a manner that might cause someone to assault them. In my case, I was preventing my son, who was having a tantrum, from running into a highway, by restraining him with minimal force. Someone might think I was kidnapping him and try to intervene. His mother alleged a prior injury was caused by my restraint, and I was arrested for felony assault.
Then, in the Web's infancy, 2400bps data connections were almost bearable for browsing. I dunno if the Web "grew up" as much as it "grew fat".