So, instead of just doing without, you pay someone else for a crappy knockoff and still look like you are supporting the people you claim to be mad at. Good job.
You do understand that the dog food is legally imported, right? Customs prevents illegal importation. The people you should be upset with are the FDA and the companies sell the dog food.
For those who do not understand what that says, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is not a part of the judicial system and is not "some judges". The PCLOB can claim something is illegal until they are blue in the face, the ONLY part of the government that can make a determination that something is truly illegal is the judicial branch. The executive branch can believe a program is illegal and not implement or end it. But, it can't determine actual legality. If it could, then anyone who did anything the executive branch said was illegal, this means anyone ever charged in federal court, would be automatically guilty. There would be no need for a court or judges and we would be ruled by a totalitarian king, not a president.
This factual error, which appears to me to be a deliberate and outright lie, invalidates the author's entire line of reasoning and calls into question all the premises upon which it is based.
Who would have guessed that a specie that developed on the surface of a planet with gravity, atmosphere, humidity, open space, filtered sunlight, etc. wouldn't be "cut out for living in space" which involves living in a cramped space in a low or no gravity environment breathing recycled, low humidity atmosphere with artificial light?
Awww, look, the bitcoin fanboys don't like the truth. My comment went from +4 Informative to -1 flaimbait with most of the ratings being Overrated, all more than a day after the last positive mod.
No, it means what the dictionary definition says, and Snowden fits that definition quite well. Perhaps you should explain how his actions don't meet the definition of treason.
My question is why are you too much of a coward to comment under your screen name?
You are making a foolish and false comparison. The government can make owning, using, selling, buying, or transferring bitcoins illegal. If the U.S., China, Russia, and the EU did that, how long would bitcoins be worth anything? What if the U.S. fixed the value of bitcoins at $0.00001 and then prosecuted anyone selling bitcoins for more than that a crime?
No, my friend, you and the rest of the bitcoin fanboys have no imagination as to what could actually be done.
No, I will not cut him a break. He has no remorse for what he did and everyone treats him like he is a hero. As far as I am concerned, he should still be in prison.
He has a history of breaking and entering, burglary, wire fraud, computer fraud, fraudulently trying to acquire identification, and cloning cell phones on top his cracking exploits which include hacking into a credit card processor and putting their credit card database on the internet.
if no one knows the camera is off, you will be INVESTIGATED FOR POSSIBLY COMMITTING A CRIME. Or, are you suggesting that people who do things that look like they are committing a crime shouldn't be investigated because they haven't definitively been proven to be committing a crime? You know that is what you are arguing, right? That he shouldn't have been investigated at all because there was no definitive proof he had actually committed a crime. I guess you think that when a woman is raped, there should be no investigation unless she can definitively prove who raped her by providing eye witnesses or video, right?
And, I don't believe you were a Marine. Even Marines are you stupid as you are.
I see you are ignorant of the U.S. Constitution, specifically article 1, section 8, paragraph 8, where copyright and patent law is specifically assigned to the federal government.
I see you are a worthless, anti-government zealot. You don't think violating copy right should be a crime, so would it be safe to say you don't think people should make money on their works?
I see that you didn't bother to answer the question, who should enforce copyright law? Are you too stupid to answer the question, or is it that you think there should be no copyright law so you don't have to pay for the works you want? What is it like have the mentality of a greed two year old?
Please state exactly which "civil rights" were violated and how they were violated.
by falsely reporting his medical equipment as being something criminal,
False report? Excuse me, but are you an idiot? Google Glass is not medical equipment. Google Glass does have a video recording function and, this is the important part, using a video camera to record a moving being shown in a movie theater is a federal crime, it often says so before the movie begins to play.
they had no evidence of a crime,
Except for him pointing a video recording device at a movie screen
and could have cleared with a simple conversation.
Which is not part of their job. That is the job of law enforcement.
They had every right to ask him to leave, but not to make a false report.
Oh, they had every right to ask him to leave. But, they had every right to call law enforcement when they saw him pointing a video camera, in the form of Google Glass, at the movie screen.
Perhaps you should actually LEARN what the law before commenting on it.
Perhaps you should learn to read the things at the beginning of the movie that says violating the copy right is a federal offense and is investigated by the FBI.
Your empathy with someone wrongly harassed and detained is impressive.
Wrongly harassed and detained? Would you say the same thing if the person in question had been pointing a video camera at the screen? Google Glass can act as a video camera, thus he was pointing a video camera at the screen.
Try to be annoyed at the right people
You should take your own advice. The person to be annoyed at is the person wearing a video camera on his head during a movie.
Rights are not supposed to be just for the people who know how to play the system.
What rights were violated exactly? Unreasonable search? Detention and interrogation by the federal authorities? He was doing something that was suspicious and is a federal offense. It says so before the movie begins. A person going into a bank wearing a ski mask and carrying a gun will get treated as a possible bank robber. This person pointed a video camera at a movie screen and was treating like someone who violating a federal law.
Twenty years ago, the "feds" had the ability to "detain you in a private place and get to inspect all your" private movies if you went into a movie theater and pointed a video camera at the screen. That this person used Google Glass or that someone else might use a cell phone is irrelevant. Copy right infringement is a federal offense and is investigated by the federal law enforcement agencies.
What happened to 'presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law'?
The individual in question was not convicted. The incident was investigated. You seem to be under the impression that this person did nothing that could be considered suspicious and was just harassed for no reason. That is not the case. He effectively went into a movie theater and pointed a video camera at the screen. That provides a reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred.
Slashdot Mirror
Tineye is your friend : Wivenhoe Park by John Constable
Because, there is no way they can lease it out to all those wonderful commercial space ventures.
So, instead of just doing without, you pay someone else for a crappy knockoff and still look like you are supporting the people you claim to be mad at. Good job.
You do understand that the dog food is legally imported, right? Customs prevents illegal importation. The people you should be upset with are the FDA and the companies sell the dog food.
When was the last time you heard about someone buying a counterfeit shirt, putting it on, then dying from it, or killing someone else?
Oh, and various multi-million dollar drug busts:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.abc6.com/story/2336...
http://www.news.com.au/nationa...
http://www.celebritynetworth.c...
Though he started by revealing NSA collection programs that some judges have now declared illegal, such as the metadata program,
Following the link, one finds another article on the same site which states:
The [Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board] is an independent committee that operates within the Executive Branch
For those who do not understand what that says, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is not a part of the judicial system and is not "some judges". The PCLOB can claim something is illegal until they are blue in the face, the ONLY part of the government that can make a determination that something is truly illegal is the judicial branch. The executive branch can believe a program is illegal and not implement or end it. But, it can't determine actual legality. If it could, then anyone who did anything the executive branch said was illegal, this means anyone ever charged in federal court, would be automatically guilty. There would be no need for a court or judges and we would be ruled by a totalitarian king, not a president.
This factual error, which appears to me to be a deliberate and outright lie, invalidates the author's entire line of reasoning and calls into question all the premises upon which it is based.
Who would have guessed that a specie that developed on the surface of a planet with gravity, atmosphere, humidity, open space, filtered sunlight, etc. wouldn't be "cut out for living in space" which involves living in a cramped space in a low or no gravity environment breathing recycled, low humidity atmosphere with artificial light?
Awww, look, the bitcoin fanboys don't like the truth. My comment went from +4 Informative to -1 flaimbait with most of the ratings being Overrated, all more than a day after the last positive mod.
No, it means what the dictionary definition says, and Snowden fits that definition quite well. Perhaps you should explain how his actions don't meet the definition of treason.
My question is why are you too much of a coward to comment under your screen name?
The entire world doesn't have to ban bitcoins. All it would take is for the G20 to the use of bitcoins, In fact, it would probably only take the G8.
You ask how the U.S. government could prosecute you? Do you live in a country with an extradition treaty?
You don't seem to have a grasp of economics and politics.
You are making a foolish and false comparison. The government can make owning, using, selling, buying, or transferring bitcoins illegal. If the U.S., China, Russia, and the EU did that, how long would bitcoins be worth anything? What if the U.S. fixed the value of bitcoins at $0.00001 and then prosecuted anyone selling bitcoins for more than that a crime?
No, my friend, you and the rest of the bitcoin fanboys have no imagination as to what could actually be done.
Personal aggrandizement through hubris isn't the right reason.
At least life in prison if not the death penalty for committing treason.
Exactly how long do you think YOU would last against a chess grand-master?
No, I will not cut him a break. He has no remorse for what he did and everyone treats him like he is a hero. As far as I am concerned, he should still be in prison.
I don't think so.
He has a history of breaking and entering, burglary, wire fraud, computer fraud, fraudulently trying to acquire identification, and cloning cell phones on top his cracking exploits which include hacking into a credit card processor and putting their credit card database on the internet.
if no one knows the camera is off, you will be INVESTIGATED FOR POSSIBLY COMMITTING A CRIME. Or, are you suggesting that people who do things that look like they are committing a crime shouldn't be investigated because they haven't definitively been proven to be committing a crime? You know that is what you are arguing, right? That he shouldn't have been investigated at all because there was no definitive proof he had actually committed a crime. I guess you think that when a woman is raped, there should be no investigation unless she can definitively prove who raped her by providing eye witnesses or video, right?
And, I don't believe you were a Marine. Even Marines are you stupid as you are.
I see you are ignorant of the U.S. Constitution, specifically article 1, section 8, paragraph 8, where copyright and patent law is specifically assigned to the federal government.
I see you are a worthless, anti-government zealot. You don't think violating copy right should be a crime, so would it be safe to say you don't think people should make money on their works?
I see that you didn't bother to answer the question, who should enforce copyright law? Are you too stupid to answer the question, or is it that you think there should be no copyright law so you don't have to pay for the works you want? What is it like have the mentality of a greed two year old?
The FBI investigates federal crimes. They were investigating a possible federal crime. Who do you think should be investigating federal crimes?
And, really, you wouldn't know an unjust law if it bit you on the ass.
Violating his civil rights
Please state exactly which "civil rights" were violated and how they were violated.
by falsely reporting his medical equipment as being something criminal,
False report? Excuse me, but are you an idiot? Google Glass is not medical equipment. Google Glass does have a video recording function and, this is the important part, using a video camera to record a moving being shown in a movie theater is a federal crime, it often says so before the movie begins to play.
they had no evidence of a crime,
Except for him pointing a video recording device at a movie screen
and could have cleared with a simple conversation.
Which is not part of their job. That is the job of law enforcement.
They had every right to ask him to leave, but not to make a false report.
Oh, they had every right to ask him to leave. But, they had every right to call law enforcement when they saw him pointing a video camera, in the form of Google Glass, at the movie screen.
Perhaps you should actually LEARN what the law before commenting on it.
Perhaps you should learn to read the things at the beginning of the movie that says violating the copy right is a federal offense and is investigated by the FBI.
Your empathy with someone wrongly harassed and detained is impressive.
Wrongly harassed and detained? Would you say the same thing if the person in question had been pointing a video camera at the screen? Google Glass can act as a video camera, thus he was pointing a video camera at the screen.
Try to be annoyed at the right people
You should take your own advice. The person to be annoyed at is the person wearing a video camera on his head during a movie.
Rights are not supposed to be just for the people who know how to play the system.
What rights were violated exactly? Unreasonable search? Detention and interrogation by the federal authorities? He was doing something that was suspicious and is a federal offense. It says so before the movie begins. A person going into a bank wearing a ski mask and carrying a gun will get treated as a possible bank robber. This person pointed a video camera at a movie screen and was treating like someone who violating a federal law.
What happened to 'presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law'?
The individual in question was not convicted. The incident was investigated. You seem to be under the impression that this person did nothing that could be considered suspicious and was just harassed for no reason. That is not the case. He effectively went into a movie theater and pointed a video camera at the screen. That provides a reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred.
Reeves left the theater to complain to staff, and when he returned, Oulson asked whether Reeves had reported him to management, the sheriff’s office said. The two began to argue and that’s when Oulson threw a bag of popcorn at Reeves, an arrest report said.
I will trust the local news sources over a blog post for a site in the next state over, which happens to be over 300 miles away.
I am providing facts, not excuses. You seem to need a course in reading comprehension.