This doesn't seem to be about "... incompetent [...] officials..." trying to cover their asses - it seems to be a person doing something that is against the law in a way that appears to be not relevant to the goal of informing the owner of the system of the problem. If one finds out that a security door that is locked can be opened without a key and reports it that is okay. If one instead proceeds to go inside and look around then it isn't okay - even if the broken door is later reported.
There is of course a gray zone here as in many other cases so a way to try to determine if the person in question had a criminal intent or a lapse of judgement by looking at documented facts and then decide a suitable punishment (if any) would be proper for this. That is why the legal system exist.
How about just looking at the science? Marijuana _is_ linked to psychosis whether you like it or not, studies that properly compensates for the self-medication effect (where people with preexisting mental problems use alcohol, marijuana or other drugs to feel better) still shows that use of the drug can trigger psychosis of different kinds - in some cases permanent. This isn't too strange given what we know of the workings of the brain and the effects of drugs.
Claiming there isn't a problem is the common excuse used by the pothead fanatics. Other claims is that marijuana never caused any deaths (easily disproved) or that marijuana use isn't linked to violent behavior (easily disproved).
If you'd instead point out that alcohol can also trigger psychosis in certain individuals (very unusual) or that most marijuana users have no problems caused of the drug use then we could have a honest discussion. But posting pro-drug propaganda? Fuck off!
I'll assume you aren't just pretending to not understand this (extremely simple BTW) case.
Probation violation is a crime. A crime can be used as the reason to request a extradition from a country, that applies even if the particular country doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US - however that would make it much harder.
So yes, [crime] in the [country one] can be a basis for extradition from [country two].
How it that so hard to understand: 1) declare that weddings aren't permitted 2) enforce the ban 3) profit
This is about limiting groups of people and having control of movements of people. Nothing strange about it, just compare the people control used during e.g. a presidential visit.
TTL? While that is very unlikely (low power CMOS is more likely given the platform) the logic family doesn't enter into it - it's the functionality that matter.
And according to the article they started to prepare for replacement as "[the old machines] are getting less and less reliable and harder to find"...
Look at it like a kind of religion. They are the chosen ones - the ones with supreme hearing and musical appreciation, they just _know_ that buying that expensive platinum coated pure silver audio cable (naturally cryogenically treated - and using the long time cooling kind*, not the inexpensive short time cooled) simply sounds better and science just doesn't apply to real audiophiles. Compare that to misc. cranks that may very well be good scientists in their area of expertise but can still believe in the most inane medical quackery or the existence of perpetuum mobiles. It's a matter of faith.
(* yes that _is_ a thing, guess they have to come up with something new as audiophiles always keep upgrading their already perfect systems)
Just how much energy has been wasted mining bitcoins over the years.
Bitcoin mining is done where electricity is cheap, which means baseload hydropower in places like Iceland or Oregon. So the only "waste" is water flowing to the sea at a slightly lower velocity.
Hydropower isn't free nor without impact on the nature (and I'm not talking about building the powerplants here, just using them). Wasting it on something is still a waste.
This guy, and anyone that uses Bitcoin, is a drain on society and resources.
Compared to what? Would we better off if people mined more gold and diamonds instead?
How about not trying to create a strawman? But even then: yes, both gold and diamonds are useful for manufacturing, medical treatments etc.
BTW pederasts are male pedophiles that prefer boys. Gay men aren't attracted to children - but sure, there are gay pedophiles too. The linking of pedophiles with homosexuals was popular for a while but just as phrenology isn't used today that is also seen as unscientific (and false). Well unless you are Russian, they seem to like that kind of thinking over there. Science have shown that bisexual and homosexual behavior is relatively common in nature just as in humans. That shows that it isn't a danger to the gene pool...
(yeah I took the bait - but it looked so damn tasty!)
Severely beating ones disobedient children so they get permanent disabilities isn't a problem - as there are "cultures" where a child that brings dishonor to the family is killed, often in a horrifying and painful way. Stalking, slandering and threatening women that doesn't want to date/have sex etc. with you is okay - in other places they throw acid on them.
It was Bush that removed the only obstacle for the North Koreans to make nuclear weapons though, one very stupid move that will cause great costs to the US for a long time.
Or explained in a simple manner: Clinton: "How about nuclear power and other stuff if you don't make nuclear weapons?" Kim: "Sure, that's a deal" Bush: "We will make no deals with the great eeeevil!!" Kim: "Well fuck you then! I'll go build some nukes, with blackjack and hookers!"
Not the naming of a national mammal (while strange itself) but this: "... hunters nearly wiped out the continent's largest mammals". Really?!? How can humans have such an impact on nature, the world is so large and humans so weak - the whole idea is genuinely ridiculous!
Personally I think is was the sunspots who did it, never trusted that glowing thing...
... Also considering who it is, selling all of his stock in Apple, could "plunge" the stock, then after it bottoms, he buys it back at a super low price, and it goes back up and he makes even MORE money...
Let's say what you have suggested happens, that Carl Icahn makes another trillion dollars shorting Apple stock and then buy back at super low price
Let me ask you this --- is there anything wrong with what he does?
Yes. Given you post history I'd doubt you would understand why even if I spell it out for you so I'll refrain from that.
After all, this is the FREE MARKET --- If you get to do whatever you want with your own money, Mr. Icahn should have the same right and use his money the way he sees fit
The idea of the free market is an artificial construct that can't work in the real world. And even IF it was possible we don't have a free market currently.
Now, don't tell me about that bullshi 1% thing
They get to be 1% because they use their brain, and if you can't be amongst the 1%, hey, don't blame them, blame yourself for being too lazy to use YOUR brain
Bullshit! You may think that but of the people using their brains most never get close to rich - that's not how the world works. The very rich are because they had a lot of money to start with and create more money. And here we return to the idea of the free market - where is the inheritance tax that makes sure people doesn't inherit enormous wealth therefore effectively removing choice from the smart poor people not inheriting? Without that there can never truly be a free market.
That says... Carl Icahn has a point in saying Apple's over reliance on China (or any other country for the matter)
Ever since the death of Steve Jobs Apple's future has gone bleak. Cook is no Jobs. He ain't got the vision of Mr. Jobs nor the drive to identify the upcoming trend
All Cook has done was sitting on the helm doing nothing
I mean, what's so different between the latest iteration of iPhone with their previous version of the same product?
As far as I can tell, except for the hype, nothing much
Under Mr. Jobs, Apple went from one product to another --- from Apple to Mac to iPod to iPhone to iPad, --- and under Cook, what kind of new product Apple has come out with?
Apple might as well do what Yahoo is doing --- give away the hundreds of billions that it is sitting on to the shareholders, and close their doors, since there ain't gonna be any exciting new product coming, certainly not under Cook
There is a witness that claimed to have seen things that are criminal to possess and the court considered it so reliable a search warrant was created. There is no provision of evidence expected from the suspect - just that he provides access so that the items in question can be searched. Again: he isn't forced to provide evidence, just to give access to something that can contain evidence. If you shoot somebody and then when provided with a search warrant you don't provide the police access to your gun (for ballistic testing) then the 5th doesn't matter - and this is the same thing.
No it isn't! This is the same thing as not opening a locked room, safe etc. when a court have issued a search warrant that includes the content of those things, something that can (if the room etc. can't be opened by a 3rd party) result in contempt of court.
He isn't forced to _produce_ evidence against himself - he is forced to provide _access_ to the potential evidence already existing _under_a_search_warrant_.
Hypothetical example: a person A shows a person B that the content of a safe consists of a bag of cocaine and some explosives. Person B tells the police, the police attains a search warrant for the safe _but_ it isn't considered safe to try to force entry into the safe (due to the explosives). Person A can but will not open up the safe even though he is legally required to (due to the warrant). A court rules that he must open it up and when person A still refuses he is in contempt of court.
Observe that person A never is forced to testify against himself. This is an important distinction. The court doesn't lock person A because he doesn't produce evidence against himself, it does as person A doesn't comply with a legally binding (based on a reliable witness testimony) warrant to provide access to something. No, the 5th doesn't protect against this, claiming to not being able to do it (like by forgetting the lock code/password) can _IF_ the court believes that is the case.
Not really. In this case it isn't relevant at all though - as the suspect doesn't claim to have forgotten the password, just that he will not provide it.
Fascism is state-totalitarian with a form of corporatism. The needs of the state is priority #1 (allowing for economic plans) and the workers, the state and employers would work together in guild systems.
Maybe you shouldn't trust myths and instead look for what research says? Or perhaps science is only good when it reinforces your biases?
Taxing those who can afford it more isn't possible in the current US, the very rich and the super-rich can afford to pay for lobbyists and even politicians (often indirectly, avoiding obvious bribes). Even if that factor is ignored the common psyche of the US makes even the poor thinking that the rich shouldn't be taxed harder - as they think that "the American dream" is real and that they someday will be rich too. Add to that the tax avoidance schemes the rich can afford.
Slashdot Mirror
This doesn't seem to be about "... incompetent [...] officials ..." trying to cover their asses - it seems to be a person doing something that is against the law in a way that appears to be not relevant to the goal of informing the owner of the system of the problem. If one finds out that a security door that is locked can be opened without a key and reports it that is okay. If one instead proceeds to go inside and look around then it isn't okay - even if the broken door is later reported.
There is of course a gray zone here as in many other cases so a way to try to determine if the person in question had a criminal intent or a lapse of judgement by looking at documented facts and then decide a suitable punishment (if any) would be proper for this. That is why the legal system exist.
How about just looking at the science? Marijuana _is_ linked to psychosis whether you like it or not, studies that properly compensates for the self-medication effect (where people with preexisting mental problems use alcohol, marijuana or other drugs to feel better) still shows that use of the drug can trigger psychosis of different kinds - in some cases permanent. This isn't too strange given what we know of the workings of the brain and the effects of drugs.
Claiming there isn't a problem is the common excuse used by the pothead fanatics. Other claims is that marijuana never caused any deaths (easily disproved) or that marijuana use isn't linked to violent behavior (easily disproved).
If you'd instead point out that alcohol can also trigger psychosis in certain individuals (very unusual) or that most marijuana users have no problems caused of the drug use then we could have a honest discussion. But posting pro-drug propaganda? Fuck off!
I'll assume you aren't just pretending to not understand this (extremely simple BTW) case.
Probation violation is a crime. A crime can be used as the reason to request a extradition from a country, that applies even if the particular country doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US - however that would make it much harder.
So yes, [crime] in the [country one] can be a basis for extradition from [country two].
Machine learning is the new magic!
How it that so hard to understand: 1) declare that weddings aren't permitted 2) enforce the ban 3) profit
This is about limiting groups of people and having control of movements of people. Nothing strange about it, just compare the people control used during e.g. a presidential visit.
TTL? While that is very unlikely (low power CMOS is more likely given the platform) the logic family doesn't enter into it - it's the functionality that matter.
And according to the article they started to prepare for replacement as "[the old machines] are getting less and less reliable and harder to find"...
Look at it like a kind of religion. They are the chosen ones - the ones with supreme hearing and musical appreciation, they just _know_ that buying that expensive platinum coated pure silver audio cable (naturally cryogenically treated - and using the long time cooling kind*, not the inexpensive short time cooled) simply sounds better and science just doesn't apply to real audiophiles. Compare that to misc. cranks that may very well be good scientists in their area of expertise but can still believe in the most inane medical quackery or the existence of perpetuum mobiles. It's a matter of faith.
(* yes that _is_ a thing, guess they have to come up with something new as audiophiles always keep upgrading their already perfect systems)
Just how much energy has been wasted mining bitcoins over the years.
Bitcoin mining is done where electricity is cheap, which means baseload hydropower in places like Iceland or Oregon. So the only "waste" is water flowing to the sea at a slightly lower velocity.
Hydropower isn't free nor without impact on the nature (and I'm not talking about building the powerplants here, just using them). Wasting it on something is still a waste.
This guy, and anyone that uses Bitcoin, is a drain on society and resources.
Compared to what? Would we better off if people mined more gold and diamonds instead?
How about not trying to create a strawman? But even then: yes, both gold and diamonds are useful for manufacturing, medical treatments etc.
Wasting power is still a waste.
So transsexuals are okay? Sounds like Iran to me.
BTW pederasts are male pedophiles that prefer boys. Gay men aren't attracted to children - but sure, there are gay pedophiles too. The linking of pedophiles with homosexuals was popular for a while but just as phrenology isn't used today that is also seen as unscientific (and false). Well unless you are Russian, they seem to like that kind of thinking over there.
Science have shown that bisexual and homosexual behavior is relatively common in nature just as in humans. That shows that it isn't a danger to the gene pool...
(yeah I took the bait - but it looked so damn tasty!)
Continuing your reasoning:
Severely beating ones disobedient children so they get permanent disabilities isn't a problem - as there are "cultures" where a child that brings dishonor to the family is killed, often in a horrifying and painful way.
Stalking, slandering and threatening women that doesn't want to date/have sex etc. with you is okay - in other places they throw acid on them.
What are you talking about?
Well according to some* the world leaders are all reptilians so maybe Obama could be the state reptile?
(* Really, really, REALLY crazy people. But at least they don't go around killing other people so I guess they are better than Daesh at least)
Bah! You don't fool us! http://zapatopi.net/belgium/
One can't forget what isn't real.
It was Bush that removed the only obstacle for the North Koreans to make nuclear weapons though, one very stupid move that will cause great costs to the US for a long time.
Or explained in a simple manner: Clinton: "How about nuclear power and other stuff if you don't make nuclear weapons?" Kim: "Sure, that's a deal" Bush: "We will make no deals with the great eeeevil!!" Kim: "Well fuck you then! I'll go build some nukes, with blackjack and hookers!"
Not the naming of a national mammal (while strange itself) but this: "... hunters nearly wiped out the continent's largest mammals".
Really?!? How can humans have such an impact on nature, the world is so large and humans so weak - the whole idea is genuinely ridiculous!
Personally I think is was the sunspots who did it, never trusted that glowing thing...
Let's say what you have suggested happens, that Carl Icahn makes another trillion dollars shorting Apple stock and then buy back at super low price
Let me ask you this --- is there anything wrong with what he does?
Yes. Given you post history I'd doubt you would understand why even if I spell it out for you so I'll refrain from that.
After all, this is the FREE MARKET --- If you get to do whatever you want with your own money, Mr. Icahn should have the same right and use his money the way he sees fit
The idea of the free market is an artificial construct that can't work in the real world. And even IF it was possible we don't have a free market currently.
Now, don't tell me about that bullshi 1% thing
They get to be 1% because they use their brain, and if you can't be amongst the 1%, hey, don't blame them, blame yourself for being too lazy to use YOUR brain
Bullshit! You may think that but of the people using their brains most never get close to rich - that's not how the world works. The very rich are because they had a lot of money to start with and create more money.
And here we return to the idea of the free market - where is the inheritance tax that makes sure people doesn't inherit enormous wealth therefore effectively removing choice from the smart poor people not inheriting? Without that there can never truly be a free market.
That says ... Carl Icahn has a point in saying Apple's over reliance on China (or any other country for the matter)
Ever since the death of Steve Jobs Apple's future has gone bleak. Cook is no Jobs. He ain't got the vision of Mr. Jobs nor the drive to identify the upcoming trend
All Cook has done was sitting on the helm doing nothing
I mean, what's so different between the latest iteration of iPhone with their previous version of the same product?
As far as I can tell, except for the hype, nothing much
Under Mr. Jobs, Apple went from one product to another --- from Apple to Mac to iPod to iPhone to iPad, --- and under Cook, what kind of new product Apple has come out with?
Apple might as well do what Yahoo is doing --- give away the hundreds of billions that it is sitting on to the shareholders, and close their doors, since there ain't gonna be any exciting new product coming, certainly not under Cook
Still not thinking I see. Bah.
There is a witness that claimed to have seen things that are criminal to possess and the court considered it so reliable a search warrant was created. There is no provision of evidence expected from the suspect - just that he provides access so that the items in question can be searched. Again: he isn't forced to provide evidence, just to give access to something that can contain evidence. If you shoot somebody and then when provided with a search warrant you don't provide the police access to your gun (for ballistic testing) then the 5th doesn't matter - and this is the same thing.
You are assuming the suspect claim to not remember the password. That's not true, he just refuses to provide it.
No it isn't! This is the same thing as not opening a locked room, safe etc. when a court have issued a search warrant that includes the content of those things, something that can (if the room etc. can't be opened by a 3rd party) result in contempt of court.
He isn't forced to _produce_ evidence against himself - he is forced to provide _access_ to the potential evidence already existing _under_a_search_warrant_.
Hypothetical example: a person A shows a person B that the content of a safe consists of a bag of cocaine and some explosives. Person B tells the police, the police attains a search warrant for the safe _but_ it isn't considered safe to try to force entry into the safe (due to the explosives). Person A can but will not open up the safe even though he is legally required to (due to the warrant). A court rules that he must open it up and when person A still refuses he is in contempt of court.
Observe that person A never is forced to testify against himself. This is an important distinction. The court doesn't lock person A because he doesn't produce evidence against himself, it does as person A doesn't comply with a legally binding (based on a reliable witness testimony) warrant to provide access to something. No, the 5th doesn't protect against this, claiming to not being able to do it (like by forgetting the lock code/password) can _IF_ the court believes that is the case.
Not really. In this case it isn't relevant at all though - as the suspect doesn't claim to have forgotten the password, just that he will not provide it.
You have that wrong: the rich is getting richer, the poor is getting poorer. How does that mix with your claim?
Fascism is state-totalitarian with a form of corporatism. The needs of the state is priority #1 (allowing for economic plans) and the workers, the state and employers would work together in guild systems.
In short: no, you are wrong.
Maybe you shouldn't trust myths and instead look for what research says? Or perhaps science is only good when it reinforces your biases?
Taxing those who can afford it more isn't possible in the current US, the very rich and the super-rich can afford to pay for lobbyists and even politicians (often indirectly, avoiding obvious bribes). Even if that factor is ignored the common psyche of the US makes even the poor thinking that the rich shouldn't be taxed harder - as they think that "the American dream" is real and that they someday will be rich too.
Add to that the tax avoidance schemes the rich can afford.
Destroy the one-time-pad, destroy the message.
How do you suggest one should go about to burn electricity? Electric charges doesn't readily oxidize...