The threat of having to spend the money to defend yourself, possibly of having to be arrested and incarcerated while awaiting a criminal trial, is onerous enough that it would keep people from speaking freely.
Yes. He should. But he should have accepted the bill from his phone company first, then sued the international-carrier operator for hijacking his signal.
He could have got triple damages out of it, putting him somewhere like up $100K, instead of down $300.
And I'd rather socialize than have to explain a recipe to someone whose only addition to the system is that they can insert mistakes between me and the order-taking computer.
Given a large enough set of "popular counting schemes" implemented in the observational system, that scheme approaches the situation where winning is grounds for Probable Cause.
The request becomes a demand; then an escort; then a physical removal; and then a temporary incarceration and questioning while they wait for the po-po to come haul your security-assaulting (and well-mangled in response) ass off to the joint.
How far you progress through this sequence depends on the point at which you start to comply.
Any means of randomizing the the deck makes a counting system useless. Even such a simple measure as a single riffle-shuffle that mixes the top and bottom halves redistributes any collection in the top half throughout the entire deck.
The Nevada laws are friendly to you, as they permit gambling and guarantee an open set of rules.
Because the games are profitable (which is due to the human nature of believing you can beat a game that is openly stacked against you), the casinos can afford to make the gaming place a very enjoyable place to be (the fact that this helps feed your belief that you can beat the game is no coincidence, but no detriment, either).
There is no law anywhere that forces you to gamble in a casino in Nevada. You are free to stay home and save your money.
The rest of us will go have fun and pay a fair amount for the privilege.
It means that any failures will be laid squarely where they belong: on the Bush administration.
Bush's party think they're dicking over Obama by not allowing this delay, but they're really making it plain that Bush failed to organize this correctly, failed to fund it properly, failed to operate it with any competence, and has run off to hide while it leaves millions of Americans without television for weeks and months.
Okay. Protect them. One at a time. Go to their houses, and when they click on links that bring up images of breasts, cover their eyes with your hand. This is a means of child protection that has been conducted since prehistoric times. With that sort of precedent in natural law, no court could stop you.
Questions that would tend to incriminate the answerer are inappropriate in all forums other than a courtroom, and even there the accused has the right not to speak.
There's no sense asking the question at all, much less guessing at its importance.
2. The point of democracy is to serve the stupid as well as the smart.
3. The smart aren't always acting in the public's interest. The public are.
4. Republics are generators of corruption. The cracks in any definition of them doubly so. "A senate seat is fucking valuable thing, you just don't give it away for nothing." Trusting any portion of the system to anything other than democracy is a free gift to the corruptible, and therefore a total abrogation of your democratic rights.
The structure of the Executive Branch is spelled out in the Constitution. Nowhere does it say how the Executive Branch will interface with the people, other than the minimum rate of State of the Union addresses.
If this Executive Branch wants to use a website to poll opinions out in the open, then the dynamics of that are perfectly acceptable to our system of government.
Do you imagine that any previous administration has not given undue weight to the shouting of lobbyists and cronies?
Slashdot Mirror
That's 6000, 15, and 8 too many.
Once someone starts committing a crime it's time to stop them.
You've never been in a fight.
That's too bad.
People are capable of hideous things, unbidden by any rational justification.
Unless you are prepared to stop them with greater force, you will be the victim of their lesser morality.
Don't confuse biased propaganda from the fight with the realities of the fight.
Fortunately, we have removed the irrationality from our own government and installed some people who understand America and justice.
At least we won't be giving the enemy a clear rationale any more.
The threat of having to spend the money to defend yourself, possibly of having to be arrested and incarcerated while awaiting a criminal trial, is onerous enough that it would keep people from speaking freely.
I think he should take it to court...
Yes. He should. But he should have accepted the bill from his phone company first, then sued the international-carrier operator for hijacking his signal.
He could have got triple damages out of it, putting him somewhere like up $100K, instead of down $300.
Unless you started doing anything CPU intensive and went to lunch.
Then it was very efficient at making everyone but you nonproductive.
And I'd rather socialize than have to explain a recipe to someone whose only addition to the system is that they can insert mistakes between me and the order-taking computer.
Given a large enough set of "popular counting schemes" implemented in the observational system, that scheme approaches the situation where winning is grounds for Probable Cause.
No, it wouldn't.
They asked, he complied.
The problems start when you refuse to comply.
The request becomes a demand; then an escort; then a physical removal; and then a temporary incarceration and questioning while they wait for the po-po to come haul your security-assaulting (and well-mangled in response) ass off to the joint.
How far you progress through this sequence depends on the point at which you start to comply.
Wrong.
Any means of randomizing the the deck makes a counting system useless. Even such a simple measure as a single riffle-shuffle that mixes the top and bottom halves redistributes any collection in the top half throughout the entire deck.
Yup. They have the right to refuse service to anyone, and to do it completely arbitrarily.
The Nevada laws are friendly to you, as they permit gambling and guarantee an open set of rules.
Because the games are profitable (which is due to the human nature of believing you can beat a game that is openly stacked against you), the casinos can afford to make the gaming place a very enjoyable place to be (the fact that this helps feed your belief that you can beat the game is no coincidence, but no detriment, either).
There is no law anywhere that forces you to gamble in a casino in Nevada. You are free to stay home and save your money.
The rest of us will go have fun and pay a fair amount for the privilege.
You know the rules going in.
The casinos promise not to cheat you.
You promise not to cheat the casinos.
The Gaming Commission is the referee.
You don't like it? Stay the fuck home.
the government-tracking idea is a bad one
but the ID-swipe idea is a good one
it could even result in an intelligent bar system where your "usual" orders are automatically created as buttons on the order-entry console
streamline ordering and reduce errors and eliminate having to explain things to the new kid
This is a good thing.
It means that any failures will be laid squarely where they belong: on the Bush administration.
Bush's party think they're dicking over Obama by not allowing this delay, but they're really making it plain that Bush failed to organize this correctly, failed to fund it properly, failed to operate it with any competence, and has run off to hide while it leaves millions of Americans without television for weeks and months.
Did any other botnet operator learn anything from him?
Did he disrupt the progress of networking and technology and banking by forcing resources to be diverted to preventing his sort of crime?
Is he wasting my time by being infamous enough to get my attention on slashdot?
He is not benign.
His future is going to look a lot like his past, then.
Okay. Protect them. One at a time. Go to their houses, and when they click on links that bring up images of breasts, cover their eyes with your hand. This is a means of child protection that has been conducted since prehistoric times. With that sort of precedent in natural law, no court could stop you.
Neither do I. Unless I'm posing as you.
This opinion wasn't ruling on the White House's breach of the law in ordering warrantless secret wiretaps.
It was ruling on the legality of the Congress' passing a law after the fact that allows the White House to order warrantless secret wiretaps.
The White House still clearly broke the law that was in force before this law was passed.
Questions that would tend to incriminate the answerer are inappropriate in all forums other than a courtroom, and even there the accused has the right not to speak.
There's no sense asking the question at all, much less guessing at its importance.
1. "Half" is not a majority.
2. The point of democracy is to serve the stupid as well as the smart.
3. The smart aren't always acting in the public's interest. The public are.
4. Republics are generators of corruption. The cracks in any definition of them doubly so. "A senate seat is fucking valuable thing, you just don't give it away for nothing." Trusting any portion of the system to anything other than democracy is a free gift to the corruptible, and therefore a total abrogation of your democratic rights.
Harassing the President Elect using a debunked accusation is inappropriate behavior.
The public is modding it away. Too bad for the crackpots.
They are undermining nothing.
The structure of the Executive Branch is spelled out in the Constitution. Nowhere does it say how the Executive Branch will interface with the people, other than the minimum rate of State of the Union addresses.
If this Executive Branch wants to use a website to poll opinions out in the open, then the dynamics of that are perfectly acceptable to our system of government.
Do you imagine that any previous administration has not given undue weight to the shouting of lobbyists and cronies?
This is massively superior to that.
Yup. Ain't it wonderful?
I suppose if you didn't frame your question in the form of an accusation it might stick.