Using your analogy, a huge number of US news organizations are breaking Chinese laws from the safety of US soil.
Yes. This is totally true. If our journalists or other 'seditious' people are to go to China, they can and be and are arrested at the whim of the Chinese government for crimes against the Chinese state.
Ok, you're splitting hairs here, but I'll try to answer.
If a person in the US places a bet over the internet to a server in the UK, where is the bet taking place? If a person in Chicago places a bet with a bookie in the UK, the bet is being placed in *both* Chicago and the UK. The bookie in the UK would be violating US law, but not necessarily UK law, in this case.
Does the client "go to" the server, or does the server "send it to" the client? The law treats the transaction as having occurred in both places at once. So the answer to your question here is "both".
If the US person travelled by air to the UK to place his bet, would the UK company be charged for allowing an american to bet? My understanding of the law is 'no'. Neither side of the transaction happened on US governed soil. Now if a travel agent was facilitating trips abroad for the purpose of activity illegal in the US (say, sex cruises with kids in Thailand), I'm not sure if the travel agent would be guilty or not. I'd like to see a lawyer answer that one.
If the American rang the UK office to place a bet, would that be wrong? Yes, because the transaction occurred at least partly on US soil. Both parties here would be violating US law.
Would it be wrong if the american placed the bet using the internet? Take an ethics class if you want to know if it would be wrong, but the law would be violated in this case if the bettor was in the US.
The internet has raised new questions for juristiction which have still been unanswered. Prior to this a person was usually in the same country as the company they were dealing with, but with the internet, you can have a person in country A using an ISP in country B, connecting to a server in country C, dealing with a company based in country D. In this case, where did the transaction take place, and whose laws should apply? These are excellent questions to ask of eight men and one woman in black robes in Washington. Perhaps this case will make some case law to clarify this for us.
No. The Dutch cafe owner can't be arrested, because the purchase of the pot was in an area outside US jurisdiction, and not under the controls of US law. The gamblers, on the other hand, are physically located on US soil, under US jusidiction. The website owner is using the gambler's computer to facilitate gambling, again, on US soil. The pot purchase in your example was on Dutch soil, so no US crimes have been committed.
Yes, but you see, you're confusing how things should work, and how they do work. I'm not trying to defend the government here, only explain how the law works. If you don't like it, lobby congress to change it, don't argue with me on Slashdot.
But to address your question. If a casino in Vegas were to offer online gambling, then if a resident of Illinois (where gambling is illegal unless politicians are bribed for a riverboat gambling license) were to log on and put a dollar on a dog, then that casino would be guilty of facilitating gambling in Illinois, because at least part of the transaction occurred in Illinois. BUT, if Arizona were to pass a law legalizing gambling, and Arizona residents were to log on to a Vegas server, then no crime would have been committed. There is a reason the casinos in Vegas haven't started their own internet casinos, and it's not because they'd lose money (they wouldn't).
Because the guy physically doing the gambling was in the US. The servers were only facilitating the gambling. Go back to my drugs and catapaults analogy from two posts ago. Just because you're the only one in Texas doesn't mean I'm not guilty of selling you drugs in the US. Just because the servers are in the UK doesn't mean the guy in his basement in Little Rock wasn't gambling using Peter Dicks' facilities.
Again, I'm not trying to defend the actions of the government here, I'm just trying to explain how our laws work in cases like this. So don't hate me, hate the system, man.
The reasoning is that it's because there was no crime committed. It's legal to gamble in Vegas, just like it's legal to smoke pot in Amsterdam. Americans can't be arrested for smoking pot in Amsterdam any more than they can be arrested for gambling in Vegas. It all depends on where the action took place, and whether or not the action was a crime in the place it was committed.
The guy in the article was arrested because the gambling took place within an area where it's illegal -- namely, somewhere on US soil. He couldn't get arrested if the gambling only took place in Mexico or The Netherlands or Djibouti or wherever else gambling may be legal*.
*I have no idea if gambling is legal in Mexico, The Netherlands, or Djibouti. I was just pulling country names out of my ass to make a point.
Not to defend this action, but the guy did commit a crime on US soil from the UK. I'm sure the US government's reasoning is something along these lines: By setting up a server in the UK to allow gambling in the US, the crime (slob in his underwear betting on cockroach races at 4am or whatever) was committed on US soil. The crime was only facilitated by offshore people and servers. They can use the same rationale to arrest and try South American drug lords, sea pirates (Avast!), money launderers who use offshore accounts, etc. They even have arrest warrants waiting to be served for the members of the DeBeers cartel for antitrust violations and contempt.
Here's an analogy. Say I'm in Mexico with a trebuchet and tons of pot. Let's say for the sake of argument that we paid off the federales, and we can operate with impunity. Let's say you're in Texas with a catapult. If you send me money via your catapult and I send you bales of dope via my trebuchet, I'm guilty of selling drugs in the US, even though I never set foot on US soil.
And here's some FAA guidelines to prevent people from bringing liquids onto planes, which will prevent[2] terrorists from hijacking or destroying a plane in flight!
Strict Pro-life people are against IVF as well, because embryos are created and destroyed in the process. They're also against most forms of birth control, cloning, and the death penalty, FYI.
The interesting thing is that they have set up 'embryo adoption' organizations where willing couples can adopt embryos from IVF couples who are through having kids, but have embryos left over.
The reason you don't see as much hostility toward birth control and IVF is that they generally place a higher priority on fighting abortion. Not only that, but some pro-lifers are stricter than others, just as some pro-choicers are stricter than others.
I wonder if this survey counted those cell phones that will only call certain preprogrammed numbers, like home or Mom or some such? I would be all over those suckers if I had kids.
I agree with you completely on your feelings for what makes a war morally acceptable. However, I have to point out that, if your test were applied at the beginning of WW2, it would have failed. The Nazi death camps didn't open until after we entered the war (1943? Someone correct me if wrong). The Japanese were committing all kinds of atrocities, but we didn't know about them yet.
If your point is that it's only OK to go to war if the above conditions are met, then we could not have gone to war when we did with the knowledge we had.
*disclaimer: I'm an American. As a result, the 'we' pronouns below will necessarily refer to my countrymen.
Be careful of the phrase "Does it pass the WW2 test", because WW2 started as a war over oil. The Imperial Japanese (and I refer to them as such because the Japanese today can't be compared to their past any more than today's Germans can be compared to Nazis) bombed Pearl Harbor because they wanted to knock out our pacific fleet so we couldn't go after them for taking the oil fields in Indonesia. The whole reason Japan started rolling in the first place was because they had no oil of their own -- they had to take everyone else's, especially after we stopped supplying them oil once they started beating up on China. They bombed Pearl Harbor because they were afraid of our response, which is why they had to strike first, so we would be too weak to do anything about it. They thought that if we were weak enough, we'd just sue for peace instead of kicking their asses right back to Honshu.
Hitler's 'Final Solution' had exactly zero to do with our joining that war. At the time the war started, many Americans wondered why we were going to war with Germany since it was Japan who had attacked us, just as many Americans today wonder why we went to war with Iraq when it was Al Qaeda who attacked us.
World War 2 was a 'war for oil' just as much as the current war in Iraq is.
I totally agree. $280 is way too much to spend for what would be a very small FPS increase. On the other hand, if they added some functionality and repackaged it as an SSL acceleration card, they would make big bucks from secure web sites looking to offload the SSL calculations from the cpu without buying a more expensive external accelerator.
Plastics and other random hydrocarbons can now be recycled into light crude oil, then cracked in a refinery to make gasoline, heating oil, diesel, and more plastic. GM is looking to do this with the thousands of tons of automotive plastics rotting in junkyards all over great lakes region.
Sounds to me like a panacea. There must be some downsides to this miracle fuel of yours, besides the acetone issues. Methanol was being tested as a gasoline additive in the 80s to reduce polution, but it was destroying various seals inside engines. There are still concerns among drivers of older mostly carbureted engines of this happening with 10% ethanol blends. If it was just a cheap, drop-in replacement for gas that could be made out of corn, the agricultural lobbies would have been hammering this down politicians' throats years ago. So, without all of the sugar coated marketing speak you just gave us, what are the real downsides?
AD 2003 has stronger password hashing than did older versions. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but 98 only supported old LanMan passwords, where 2000+ will support Kerberos.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. This is totally true. If our journalists or other 'seditious' people are to go to China, they can and be and are arrested at the whim of the Chinese government for crimes against the Chinese state.
Ok, you're splitting hairs here, but I'll try to answer.
If a person in the US places a bet over the internet to a server in the UK, where is the bet taking place?
If a person in Chicago places a bet with a bookie in the UK, the bet is being placed in *both* Chicago and the UK. The bookie in the UK would be violating US law, but not necessarily UK law, in this case.
Does the client "go to" the server, or does the server "send it to" the client?
The law treats the transaction as having occurred in both places at once. So the answer to your question here is "both".
If the US person travelled by air to the UK to place his bet, would the UK company be charged for allowing an american to bet?
My understanding of the law is 'no'. Neither side of the transaction happened on US governed soil. Now if a travel agent was facilitating trips abroad for the purpose of activity illegal in the US (say, sex cruises with kids in Thailand), I'm not sure if the travel agent would be guilty or not. I'd like to see a lawyer answer that one.
If the American rang the UK office to place a bet, would that be wrong?
Yes, because the transaction occurred at least partly on US soil. Both parties here would be violating US law.
Would it be wrong if the american placed the bet using the internet?
Take an ethics class if you want to know if it would be wrong, but the law would be violated in this case if the bettor was in the US.
The internet has raised new questions for juristiction which have still been unanswered. Prior to this a person was usually in the same country as the company they were dealing with, but with the internet, you can have a person in country A using an ISP in country B, connecting to a server in country C, dealing with a company based in country D. In this case, where did the transaction take place, and whose laws should apply?
These are excellent questions to ask of eight men and one woman in black robes in Washington. Perhaps this case will make some case law to clarify this for us.
No. The Dutch cafe owner can't be arrested, because the purchase of the pot was in an area outside US jurisdiction, and not under the controls of US law. The gamblers, on the other hand, are physically located on US soil, under US jusidiction. The website owner is using the gambler's computer to facilitate gambling, again, on US soil. The pot purchase in your example was on Dutch soil, so no US crimes have been committed.
Yes, but you see, you're confusing how things should work, and how they do work. I'm not trying to defend the government here, only explain how the law works. If you don't like it, lobby congress to change it, don't argue with me on Slashdot.
But to address your question. If a casino in Vegas were to offer online gambling, then if a resident of Illinois (where gambling is illegal unless politicians are bribed for a riverboat gambling license) were to log on and put a dollar on a dog, then that casino would be guilty of facilitating gambling in Illinois, because at least part of the transaction occurred in Illinois. BUT, if Arizona were to pass a law legalizing gambling, and Arizona residents were to log on to a Vegas server, then no crime would have been committed. There is a reason the casinos in Vegas haven't started their own internet casinos, and it's not because they'd lose money (they wouldn't).
Because the guy physically doing the gambling was in the US. The servers were only facilitating the gambling. Go back to my drugs and catapaults analogy from two posts ago. Just because you're the only one in Texas doesn't mean I'm not guilty of selling you drugs in the US. Just because the servers are in the UK doesn't mean the guy in his basement in Little Rock wasn't gambling using Peter Dicks' facilities.
Again, I'm not trying to defend the actions of the government here, I'm just trying to explain how our laws work in cases like this. So don't hate me, hate the system, man.
Good question.
The reasoning is that it's because there was no crime committed. It's legal to gamble in Vegas, just like it's legal to smoke pot in Amsterdam. Americans can't be arrested for smoking pot in Amsterdam any more than they can be arrested for gambling in Vegas. It all depends on where the action took place, and whether or not the action was a crime in the place it was committed.
The guy in the article was arrested because the gambling took place within an area where it's illegal -- namely, somewhere on US soil. He couldn't get arrested if the gambling only took place in Mexico or The Netherlands or Djibouti or wherever else gambling may be legal*.
*I have no idea if gambling is legal in Mexico, The Netherlands, or Djibouti. I was just pulling country names out of my ass to make a point.
Not to defend this action, but the guy did commit a crime on US soil from the UK. I'm sure the US government's reasoning is something along these lines: By setting up a server in the UK to allow gambling in the US, the crime (slob in his underwear betting on cockroach races at 4am or whatever) was committed on US soil. The crime was only facilitated by offshore people and servers. They can use the same rationale to arrest and try South American drug lords, sea pirates (Avast!), money launderers who use offshore accounts, etc. They even have arrest warrants waiting to be served for the members of the DeBeers cartel for antitrust violations and contempt.
Here's an analogy. Say I'm in Mexico with a trebuchet and tons of pot. Let's say for the sake of argument that we paid off the federales, and we can operate with impunity. Let's say you're in Texas with a catapult. If you send me money via your catapult and I send you bales of dope via my trebuchet, I'm guilty of selling drugs in the US, even though I never set foot on US soil.
See?
Texas Instruments has been making these for 15 years now in the form of the graphing calculator.
Yeah, but you see now we get to make fun of you for agreeing with her :)
And here's some FAA guidelines to prevent people from bringing liquids onto planes, which will prevent[2] terrorists from hijacking or destroying a plane in flight!
The funny thing is that Ann Coulter actually agrees with you.
Strict Pro-life people are against IVF as well, because embryos are created and destroyed in the process. They're also against most forms of birth control, cloning, and the death penalty, FYI.
The interesting thing is that they have set up 'embryo adoption' organizations where willing couples can adopt embryos from IVF couples who are through having kids, but have embryos left over.
The reason you don't see as much hostility toward birth control and IVF is that they generally place a higher priority on fighting abortion. Not only that, but some pro-lifers are stricter than others, just as some pro-choicers are stricter than others.
Meh. This is nothing. My girlfriend can flap her jaws much faster than this.
Am I the only one who read Zonk's tagline and saw "I like meth"?
Heh... You must work for NASA :)
I wonder if this survey counted those cell phones that will only call certain preprogrammed numbers, like home or Mom or some such? I would be all over those suckers if I had kids.
I agree with you completely on your feelings for what makes a war morally acceptable. However, I have to point out that, if your test were applied at the beginning of WW2, it would have failed. The Nazi death camps didn't open until after we entered the war (1943? Someone correct me if wrong). The Japanese were committing all kinds of atrocities, but we didn't know about them yet.
If your point is that it's only OK to go to war if the above conditions are met, then we could not have gone to war when we did with the knowledge we had.
*disclaimer: I'm an American. As a result, the 'we' pronouns below will necessarily refer to my countrymen.
Be careful of the phrase "Does it pass the WW2 test", because WW2 started as a war over oil. The Imperial Japanese (and I refer to them as such because the Japanese today can't be compared to their past any more than today's Germans can be compared to Nazis) bombed Pearl Harbor because they wanted to knock out our pacific fleet so we couldn't go after them for taking the oil fields in Indonesia. The whole reason Japan started rolling in the first place was because they had no oil of their own -- they had to take everyone else's, especially after we stopped supplying them oil once they started beating up on China. They bombed Pearl Harbor because they were afraid of our response, which is why they had to strike first, so we would be too weak to do anything about it. They thought that if we were weak enough, we'd just sue for peace instead of kicking their asses right back to Honshu.
Hitler's 'Final Solution' had exactly zero to do with our joining that war. At the time the war started, many Americans wondered why we were going to war with Germany since it was Japan who had attacked us, just as many Americans today wonder why we went to war with Iraq when it was Al Qaeda who attacked us.
World War 2 was a 'war for oil' just as much as the current war in Iraq is.
I totally agree. $280 is way too much to spend for what would be a very small FPS increase. On the other hand, if they added some functionality and repackaged it as an SSL acceleration card, they would make big bucks from secure web sites looking to offload the SSL calculations from the cpu without buying a more expensive external accelerator.
Plastics and other random hydrocarbons can now be recycled into light crude oil, then cracked in a refinery to make gasoline, heating oil, diesel, and more plastic. GM is looking to do this with the thousands of tons of automotive plastics rotting in junkyards all over great lakes region.
Sounds to me like a panacea. There must be some downsides to this miracle fuel of yours, besides the acetone issues. Methanol was being tested as a gasoline additive in the 80s to reduce polution, but it was destroying various seals inside engines. There are still concerns among drivers of older mostly carbureted engines of this happening with 10% ethanol blends. If it was just a cheap, drop-in replacement for gas that could be made out of corn, the agricultural lobbies would have been hammering this down politicians' throats years ago. So, without all of the sugar coated marketing speak you just gave us, what are the real downsides?
Somebody mod this guy down for spoiling the Dark Tower.
AD 2003 has stronger password hashing than did older versions. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but 98 only supported old LanMan passwords, where 2000+ will support Kerberos.
But hey, it's the only system in the world where the trojans prevent the viruses.
who glanced at the title of this and read "Short film about CERN's large hardon collider"?
Your taxes are high to encourage you to have children. Once you start having tax deductions, err, I mean children, things will be much better.