It doesn't seem to take into account DUI/DWI charge rates. The hope being that a DUI/DWI charge that is not involving an accident likely prevented one. Seems like a pretty major flaw.
Wouldn't you rather have your day in court to fight bullshit charges?
Only if you really think you can win. Otherwise folks who ask for their day in court (In the US anyway) are severely penalized vs those that plead guilty. It sounds like this is a "Plea bargain" situation, too. Where the perpetrators of the case bought his plea in exchange for a lesser sentence than he might have received on his own.
Agreed. Touching a competitor's setup at a trade fair is bush league.
I don't buy that "testing" defense for a second. If you're a company that large you test by buying a machine anonymously at retail, take it to your labs, complete a test plan, then take it apart the see the build and components. Just randomly poking at stuff before a trade show isn't even going to give you much data.
While I wouldn't be surprised if he broke the machines on purpose, I'm assuming these weren't available for purchase yet. That seems to be how companies work (including Samsung and LG) in other spaces such as televisions. In fact, many of those other products that they bring to shows are just concept devices that never make it to market without significant changes.
While there probably is detailed testing like you describe going on, I think it's reasonable for an exec to check out the competition at a show.
Or we could stop having superficial bosses with superficial ideas. They tend to be dying off at faster than replacement rates so perhaps there's hope for us yet. I can't wait for the last of the suit and tie set to die off.
BTW, I have no tattoos and don't especially like them. I just like corporate attitudes a lot less.
Because nothing says "I make good decisions" like permanent marks all over the body, right?
On or about August 22, 2012, the defendant,
DAVID LAWRENCE HANDEL
did knowingly use and carry a firearm, that is a Glock 26, Serial Number SRP018, during and in relation to a drug trafficking crume for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United....
That looks copied and pasted, but still, a drug trafficking crume? I hope that's a legal term and not a typo in official records or something lol.
I retyped it. The indictment, which I linked, is a pdf of a scan that wasn't properly OCR'd. If only we could get high dollar lawyers to use computers properly...
Since you took the time to call out slashdot and ars and even Tiffany Kelly, I thought I'd double-check your work. Thanks for providing the link.
Like you say, the firearm count is a double-your-penalty enhancement.
So I looked up the first count, under 21 USC 841 and it says: "a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 10 years or more than life"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...
Therefore, it is true that the firearm charge could give him an additional life penalty. Your complaint was a misrepresentation to spread more hate.
While the crime defined in 21 USC 841(a). is straightforward, the penalties are wide and varied depending on quantity. None of the reports I've read indicate how big that package was or exactly what it was even. Just that he mailed some agents some drugs and got caught with others in the post office. The indictment doesn't specify either. Maybe the author had other details she didn't share? Or it seems more likely she embellished to get clicks. I don't feel the least bit like I'm spreading hate. We're talking about a significant tidbit in an article published by a staff editor at a big news site. It's not just billy bob's blog here.
Also amusing is the list of items he will forfeit: The Glock 26, a Glock 17, a Mossberg.22, Smith & Wesson M&P 15 ( http://www.smith-wesson.com/we... [smith-wesson.com] ) and a Keltec PF-9.
I'm honestly surprised that he would carry one the Glocks to the post office, instead of the PF-9 which is more appropriate for casual protection.
18 USC 930 says you can't carry in a federal facility (e.g. post office). That's not on the indictment, so either he didn't or it's a separate case. I agree, choice to carry the double stack glock vs the single stack pf9 is an odd one...unless you're in an open carry state.
There are sites that will leave the content up. liveleak.com comes to mind. It just happens that the ever popular youtube isn't one of them. Vote with your mouse clicks if you take issue with it.
He might have already been a convicted felon, and if he was then even possessing it could be a felony.
I wonder if the definition of use is a matter of carrying the firearm while engaging in an illegal activity (ie, drug trafficking and distribution) even if his intention in carrying the firearm was to prevent someone from mugging him and taking the cash he had on his person.
The Supreme Court actually reversed *all nine* of the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal on the issue of whether simply carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony was enough to prosecute them for "using" the firearm. It was kind of a landmark case. That being said, Congress just amended the law to make carrying the firearm during the commission of a felony an additional offense.
The court documents including the indictment are here. The charge for the firearm says:
COUNT TWO
The Grand Jury for the District of Maryland further charges that:
On or about August 22, 2012, the defendant,
DAVID LAWRENCE HANDEL
did knowingly use and carry a firearm, that is a Glock 26, Serial Number SRP018, during and in relation to a drug trafficking crume for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, that is, Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute a controlled. Substance in violation of 21 U.S. C 846, as alleged in Count One of this Indictment.
The law clearly states: is punishable by imprisonment or fine or both which may not exceed the maximum punishment prescribed for the offense”. "Life" is either terrible reporting by Tiffany Kelly or deliberate misrepresentation to get more hits on ars.
If you have a 401(k) or any kind of mutual fund investment, you are part of Wall Street. That's how the system works, it's not spinning in a vacuum. That 6% return you got last year did not fall from the sky, it ended up in your pockets because institutional shareholders put pressure on companies like IBM to help the stock price and/or pay more dividends.
Every grammar school kid knows that the other gas giants also have (faint) ring systems. How did the submitter AND the Slashdot editor put such a ridiculous mistake on the front page of a nerd site? (Also this is kind of old news, widely reported last week).
Exactly how does one "get viruses" by simply visiting a website? It seems like that would require a massive amount of stupidity and an unsecured browser...
We Europeans have been trying to weed them out of our economy but apparently we need to approach it in an entirely different way, since we've only managed to hash it up so far. We'll now try to potshot them.
You must be high. We've nothing to fear from those dopes. For some, the grass is always greener on the other side.
Why good things are always acquired by douchebag companies and ruined to the ground? First Java, now this.
Shouldn't you also direct your ire at the people from R who decide that selling the company was a good idea. Do you really think that MS went to them and said
That's a nice company you have there. It'd be a shame if you didn't sell it to us
You've misunderstood my proposal. I am not proposing that the state or any government pay for anything.
I am proposing that the federal government step in to overrule local laws in place that prevent commercial businesses from running their own infrastructure and selling their own service. You may not be aware, but that is actually the situation today in much of the USA.
If bob's HISpeed LowDrag ISP shows up with the cash to lay lines for a service, they should be allowed to do it. Certainly there should be some amount of government oversight. For example a company should have insurance in case they broke a water pipe or any other buried infrastructure. Beyond ensuring that businesses operate safely when local infrastructure could be affected, the government should not have a role in broadband.
I know there are folks out there who want to pay for their internet access in the form of taxes, but I'm not one of them.
Pretty much - most corporations have just barely (as in 2-3 years ago at most) updated from XP to Windows 7.
Good luck with pushing 8 to the corporate world... it's about as adoptable as an angry badger with syphilis.
More and more, I'm finding myself working at places where I really don't have to use a Windows UI if I don't want to. Right now I'm typing this on my corporate-issued MacBook Pro, and only rarely do I bother logging onto a Windows server (vSphere client, and even then only out of habit since the web-client works pretty much as well).
Don't get me wrong - Microsoft will still be in the business world for a goodly long time - we still use Outlook/Exchange, Active Directory, and even Sharepoint (for HR/Corp crap - all the important stuff is on Confluence.) Thing is though, Microsoft's hold in business is beginning to show cracks, and I suspect in about 5 years, there will be a bit of a crisis in Redmond...
Don't be so melodramatic. I think you don't understand large corporations. I work for a fortune 20 company and at the office Win8 has been the standard for well over a year. It requires freeware start menu programs for sure but otherwise it's no less usable than 7 or xp. Of course, "mainstream support" is probably also irrelevant for any corporation since they will have their own support contracts with vendors such as Microsoft. I'm sure lots of small businesses are an exception to this. For them, the win95 (or whatever os it came with) pc that is still running may be just fine.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't seem to take into account DUI/DWI charge rates. The hope being that a DUI/DWI charge that is not involving an accident likely prevented one. Seems like a pretty major flaw.
Wouldn't you rather have your day in court to fight bullshit charges?
Only if you really think you can win. Otherwise folks who ask for their day in court (In the US anyway) are severely penalized vs those that plead guilty. It sounds like this is a "Plea bargain" situation, too. Where the perpetrators of the case bought his plea in exchange for a lesser sentence than he might have received on his own.
Agreed. Touching a competitor's setup at a trade fair is bush league.
I don't buy that "testing" defense for a second. If you're a company that large you test by buying a machine anonymously at retail, take it to your labs, complete a test plan, then take it apart the see the build and components. Just randomly poking at stuff before a trade show isn't even going to give you much data.
While I wouldn't be surprised if he broke the machines on purpose, I'm assuming these weren't available for purchase yet. That seems to be how companies work (including Samsung and LG) in other spaces such as televisions. In fact, many of those other products that they bring to shows are just concept devices that never make it to market without significant changes.
While there probably is detailed testing like you describe going on, I think it's reasonable for an exec to check out the competition at a show.
If you break your opponents washing machine, they'll have you "taken the the cleaners"....
Don't make light of washergate when you know it should be heavy.
Or we could stop having superficial bosses with superficial ideas. They tend to be dying off at faster than replacement rates so perhaps there's hope for us yet. I can't wait for the last of the suit and tie set to die off.
BTW, I have no tattoos and don't especially like them. I just like corporate attitudes a lot less.
Because nothing says "I make good decisions" like permanent marks all over the body, right?
What makes you think it will change in 2018?
The new candidates will campaign on a platform of "change" and presumably will pledge to close gitmo. Oh wait....shit.
3. Go to Guantanamo. Go directly to Guantanamo. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200 billion.
What do you mean? Isn't Guantanamo all about collecting $200 billion?
Apparently DICE/slashdot still has enough readers to take down a linked site. Who knew?
On or about August 22, 2012, the defendant, DAVID LAWRENCE HANDEL did knowingly use and carry a firearm, that is a Glock 26, Serial Number SRP018, during and in relation to a drug trafficking crume for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United ....
That looks copied and pasted, but still, a drug trafficking crume? I hope that's a legal term and not a typo in official records or something lol.
I retyped it. The indictment, which I linked, is a pdf of a scan that wasn't properly OCR'd. If only we could get high dollar lawyers to use computers properly...
Since you took the time to call out slashdot and ars and even Tiffany Kelly, I thought I'd double-check your work. Thanks for providing the link.
Like you say, the firearm count is a double-your-penalty enhancement.
So I looked up the first count, under 21 USC 841 and it says: "a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 10 years or more than life" http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...
Therefore, it is true that the firearm charge could give him an additional life penalty. Your complaint was a misrepresentation to spread more hate.
While the crime defined in 21 USC 841(a). is straightforward, the penalties are wide and varied depending on quantity. None of the reports I've read indicate how big that package was or exactly what it was even. Just that he mailed some agents some drugs and got caught with others in the post office. The indictment doesn't specify either. Maybe the author had other details she didn't share? Or it seems more likely she embellished to get clicks. I don't feel the least bit like I'm spreading hate. We're talking about a significant tidbit in an article published by a staff editor at a big news site. It's not just billy bob's blog here.
Also amusing is the list of items he will forfeit: The Glock 26, a Glock 17, a Mossberg .22, Smith & Wesson M&P 15 ( http://www.smith-wesson.com/we... [smith-wesson.com] ) and a Keltec PF-9.
I'm honestly surprised that he would carry one the Glocks to the post office, instead of the PF-9 which is more appropriate for casual protection.
18 USC 930 says you can't carry in a federal facility (e.g. post office). That's not on the indictment, so either he didn't or it's a separate case. I agree, choice to carry the double stack glock vs the single stack pf9 is an odd one...unless you're in an open carry state.
There are sites that will leave the content up. liveleak.com comes to mind. It just happens that the ever popular youtube isn't one of them. Vote with your mouse clicks if you take issue with it.
He might have already been a convicted felon, and if he was then even possessing it could be a felony.
I wonder if the definition of use is a matter of carrying the firearm while engaging in an illegal activity (ie, drug trafficking and distribution) even if his intention in carrying the firearm was to prevent someone from mugging him and taking the cash he had on his person.
The Supreme Court actually reversed *all nine* of the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal on the issue of whether simply carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony was enough to prosecute them for "using" the firearm. It was kind of a landmark case. That being said, Congress just amended the law to make carrying the firearm during the commission of a felony an additional offense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The court documents including the indictment are here. The charge for the firearm says: COUNT TWO
The Grand Jury for the District of Maryland further charges that:
On or about August 22, 2012, the defendant,
DAVID LAWRENCE HANDEL
did knowingly use and carry a firearm, that is a Glock 26, Serial Number SRP018, during and in relation to a drug trafficking crume for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, that is, Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute a controlled. Substance in violation of 21 U.S. C 846, as alleged in Count One of this Indictment.
Here's the law they're prosecuting under: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/U...
The law clearly states: is punishable by imprisonment or fine or both which may not exceed the maximum punishment prescribed for the offense”.
"Life" is either terrible reporting by Tiffany Kelly or deliberate misrepresentation to get more hits on ars.
If you have a 401(k) or any kind of mutual fund investment, you are part of Wall Street. That's how the system works, it's not spinning in a vacuum. That 6% return you got last year did not fall from the sky, it ended up in your pockets because institutional shareholders put pressure on companies like IBM to help the stock price and/or pay more dividends.
Clearly you doesn't understand what "the 1%" refers to. Here's the information you need. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
Yep, same cat.
Every grammar school kid knows that the other gas giants also have (faint) ring systems. How did the submitter AND the Slashdot editor put such a ridiculous mistake on the front page of a nerd site? (Also this is kind of old news, widely reported last week).
You must be new here, welcome to slashdot.
Exactly how does one "get viruses" by simply visiting a website? It seems like that would require a massive amount of stupidity and an unsecured browser...
Hairy Potter gives them to you.
Yes of course valuable ESA technologies, because USA isn't producing anything of value.
Pretty sure NASA has been relegated to the status of "service provider" for SpaceX.
We Europeans have been trying to weed them out of our economy but apparently we need to approach it in an entirely different way, since we've only managed to hash it up so far. We'll now try to potshot them.
You must be high. We've nothing to fear from those dopes. For some, the grass is always greener on the other side.
Why good things are always acquired by douchebag companies and ruined to the ground? First Java, now this.
Shouldn't you also direct your ire at the people from R who decide that selling the company was a good idea. Do you really think that MS went to them and said
That's a nice company you have there. It'd be a shame if you didn't sell it to us
It's not unlikely.
What's 4chan?
Just so I know, you are kidding, right?
Didn't you hear? TOR protects you from everything. It's even more effective than trojan condoms at preventing STD's and unwanted pregnancy.
The files are sometimes corrupt - refusing to load in anything other than VLC
Do people still use players other than VLC? Weird.
Woohoo! I'll stick with premiere.
You've misunderstood my proposal. I am not proposing that the state or any government pay for anything.
I am proposing that the federal government step in to overrule local laws in place that prevent commercial businesses from running their own infrastructure and selling their own service. You may not be aware, but that is actually the situation today in much of the USA.
If bob's HISpeed LowDrag ISP shows up with the cash to lay lines for a service, they should be allowed to do it. Certainly there should be some amount of government oversight. For example a company should have insurance in case they broke a water pipe or any other buried infrastructure. Beyond ensuring that businesses operate safely when local infrastructure could be affected, the government should not have a role in broadband.
I know there are folks out there who want to pay for their internet access in the form of taxes, but I'm not one of them.
Pretty much - most corporations have just barely (as in 2-3 years ago at most) updated from XP to Windows 7.
Good luck with pushing 8 to the corporate world... it's about as adoptable as an angry badger with syphilis.
More and more, I'm finding myself working at places where I really don't have to use a Windows UI if I don't want to. Right now I'm typing this on my corporate-issued MacBook Pro, and only rarely do I bother logging onto a Windows server (vSphere client, and even then only out of habit since the web-client works pretty much as well).
Don't get me wrong - Microsoft will still be in the business world for a goodly long time - we still use Outlook/Exchange, Active Directory, and even Sharepoint (for HR/Corp crap - all the important stuff is on Confluence.) Thing is though, Microsoft's hold in business is beginning to show cracks, and I suspect in about 5 years, there will be a bit of a crisis in Redmond...
Don't be so melodramatic. I think you don't understand large corporations. I work for a fortune 20 company and at the office Win8 has been the standard for well over a year. It requires freeware start menu programs for sure but otherwise it's no less usable than 7 or xp. Of course, "mainstream support" is probably also irrelevant for any corporation since they will have their own support contracts with vendors such as Microsoft. I'm sure lots of small businesses are an exception to this. For them, the win95 (or whatever os it came with) pc that is still running may be just fine.