was there an arrest warrant, though? Was she the subject of a special BOLO briefing back at the precinct earlier that day, which would explain why the cops didn't even bother to check their computer bulletin before they beat the living shit out of her?
arm bar is done on the ground and stresses the shoulder and the neck (it's a legal jiu jitsu submission hold; outside of a legally sanctioned tournament it's well, not legal). Choke hold is done standing up and stresses the neck (choke hold done by an inexperienced person can end up breaking the neck - which is why NYPD and every martial arts school and tournament including MMA have banned it).
wikipedia is not nor is intended as a primary information source. What information is on there, if it is to remain, is backed by citations to original source.
no, the licence fee funds the BBC only. The others are funded by advertising revenue. Licence fee evasion has been a criminal matter since April 2007. iPlayer and the BBC website are both funded by the commercial arm of the BBC (BBC Worldwide).
wrong. According to the ICAO definition, a drone refers to ANY unmanned aerial vehicle. The FAA does NOT use the term "drone", it prefers "Unmanned Aircraft".
This is why I've only ever bought two computer systems in my entire life. First one was a BBC Model B back in the 80's, the second one was a laptop in 2011. All my other systems are parts cobbled together with spit and hair. All of them get used until they catch fire.
that's a load. It's far more likely that the price was hiked because more people were buying it than expected. For its time it was the dog's bollocks of home computers, the keyboard was definitely built to last - unlike the membrane board on the ZX81 which would short and stick if you blew on it wrong. OK so it was thrice the price of the ZX81, but hell, it was worth all those washed cars.
24. Reclassification of the licence fee as a tax also has the consequence that the BBC is reclassified from the public non-financial corporations sub-sector to the central government sector. The status of the BBC is thus also affected by this decision and it becomes a central government body. This change also affects the Welsh broadcaster S4C.
22. Since our last report there has been a significant change in the position of the licence fee. In January 2006 the Office of National Statistics re-classified the licence fee as a tax. Previously, this payment had been classified in the National Accounts as a service charge. Explaining the change the Office of National Statistics (ONS) says “in line with the definition of a tax, the licence fee is a compulsory payment which is not paid solely for access to BBC services A licence is required to receive ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, satellite, cable”.
23. We are not convinced by this argument not least because it has been the case that a licence has been required to view any television channel in the UK for many decades. Nevertheless the decision means that from now on the licence fee will be recognised as a form of hypothecated taxation.
24. Reclassification of the licence fee as a tax also has the consequence that the BBC is reclassified from the public non-financial corporations sub-sector to the central government sector. The status of the BBC is thus also affected by this decision and it becomes a central government body. This change also affects the Welsh broadcaster S4C.
25. When announcing its decision the ONS tried to offer some reassurance that “These classifications are solely for the purpose of producing National Accounts and the statistical products based on them. This has no implication for the independence of these broadcasters”.
The upshot is that enforcement is now in the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system, rather than the civil system. In an attempt to remove any further doubt, the Government are attempting to legislate to reflect this position but sneakily: by abolishing the TV Licence and reintroducing it as an all-households tax (call it an "Air tax"?), so you have to pay it whether you have a TV or not, to also remove the requirement and burden of proof that a TV is in fact present.
there is no such thing as a victimless crime. Where you see "R -v-...", the R stands for "Regina", ie the CROWN. It is the CROWN on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen (the VICTIM) who are making claim against you.
there are three companies running 14 prisons in the UK. Yes, I said companies. Her Majesty's Prison Service runs places like The Maze, still, which houses the most violent prisoners, but for just about all the "low risk", they're in Hotel Sodexo (which is really more of a Gulag, ask Melanie Shaw if you can get a visit - they're not letting ANYONE in to see her at the moment, not even a legal adviser or a family member), Group 3 (one got away - old joke, now better known as G4S, a throwback acronym to one of their previous names - Group 4 Securicor - they do most of the prisoner transport to and from court as well, and they're particularly famous for not only fucking up the security for the Olympics in 2012 and trying to fuck off with the money paid to them to run the security, they got their no-bid contract to run the prisons and transport renewed!), Serco (who do a lot of police desk work and probation as well as manage a few of the Category C (low risk) prisons).
uh... Kanye West Whitney Houston (yeah. Bite me, women can be douchebags, too. Women doubly so, in fact. Ask Bobby, and don't forget to duck, they were as bad as each other.) LeBron James Chris "Tell Me I'm Pretty" Bosh (can go sit on a fucking railroad spike) LaVar "Stole mah jerb!" Arrington Tiger "Tag the cunt with a Titleist" Woods
No, seriously. It is a technology based on vinyl records, instead of encoding audio it encodes video as well - on an analogue groove track. Given a stable enough substrate - platinum base with a gold electroplating for instance, such as on the Voyager records - it'll last practically forever.
wouldn't be to ban strong encryption, it would be to make the assumption in Law that there mere *presence* of such an encryption system is enough indication of liability. Much like the assumption made that because something posesses a moving picture display that it is being used as a televisual broadcast receiver even if it isn't actually being used as such. It's easier to assume than it is to carry the burden of proof - with assumption comes the passing of that stick to the accused (who is on a loser because - and you've got to point this out or you're screwed - you can't prove a negative, it's a logical absurdity).
What this means to Granny is that if her computer is compromised with one of those cryptolocker things that encrypts her home folder and holds it ransom, she can't decrypt it because she doesn't have the key.
Strike 1 in English Law: possession being 9/10, if you have hold of a hard drive it is assumed that you have access to the data on it.
Strike 2: if there is an encryption it is also assumed that you have the key (see previous point about proving negatives).
Strike 3: Case that Granny is accused of having kiddie porn, the assumption can now be made that said kiddie porn is inside the encrypted container. Because the Law is now changed so that criminal liability now works on Balance of Probabilities (hence doesn't need a jury to decide Beyond Reasonable Doubt), Granny is going away for a while even if a: there is no kiddie porn - which she can't prove by unlocking the encrypted container, and b: she could prove it by breaking the encryption and opening the container - make the assumption that there are other containers containing the porn, which given the mental status of State prosecutors (and police), being utterly paranoid, she be fucked because the seed thought is there (that Granny is a bad person), and combined with the balance of probabilities, "No Smoke Without Fire" applies. NSWF CANNOT apply in Beyond Reasonable Doubt because BRD REQUIRES physical evidence! And encrypted container with no access to the data is NOT physical evidence. If it were we'd see prisons bursting with people jailed on the basis of unseen contents in sealed black boxes.
Lesson for all: if you're accused of causing harm or damage, DEMAND THAT JURY AND DO NOT BACK DOWN.
Slashdot Mirror
was there an arrest warrant, though? Was she the subject of a special BOLO briefing back at the precinct earlier that day, which would explain why the cops didn't even bother to check their computer bulletin before they beat the living shit out of her?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
the rule about it being not a primary source kinda fixes that. If you don't cite your sources, the article is deprecated, simple as.
Kinda like the scientific process: cite your research, or bullshit be called.
and the fact that Taisha Allen (one of the two people who recorded the choking death of Eric Garner) has been arrested and beaten by NYPD officers?
http://rt.com/usa/240261-nypd-...
It's public domain now, bitches! Edit THIS!
arm bar is done on the ground and stresses the shoulder and the neck (it's a legal jiu jitsu submission hold; outside of a legally sanctioned tournament it's well, not legal). Choke hold is done standing up and stresses the neck (choke hold done by an inexperienced person can end up breaking the neck - which is why NYPD and every martial arts school and tournament including MMA have banned it).
wikipedia is not nor is intended as a primary information source. What information is on there, if it is to remain, is backed by citations to original source.
no, the licence fee funds the BBC only. The others are funded by advertising revenue. Licence fee evasion has been a criminal matter since April 2007. iPlayer and the BBC website are both funded by the commercial arm of the BBC (BBC Worldwide).
wrong. According to the ICAO definition, a drone refers to ANY unmanned aerial vehicle. The FAA does NOT use the term "drone", it prefers "Unmanned Aircraft".
This is why I've only ever bought two computer systems in my entire life. First one was a BBC Model B back in the 80's, the second one was a laptop in 2011. All my other systems are parts cobbled together with spit and hair. All of them get used until they catch fire.
out of all the games listed, that's the only one I actually play!
that's a load. It's far more likely that the price was hiked because more people were buying it than expected. For its time it was the dog's bollocks of home computers, the keyboard was definitely built to last - unlike the membrane board on the ZX81 which would short and stick if you blew on it wrong. OK so it was thrice the price of the ZX81, but hell, it was worth all those washed cars.
they're not a public service broadcaster, they're the Propaganda Arm of the State.
the BBC is a Central Government agency.
http://www.publications.parlia... page 11:
24. Reclassification of the licence fee as a tax also has the consequence that the BBC is reclassified from the public non-financial corporations sub-sector to
the central government sector. The status of the BBC is thus also affected by this decision and it becomes a central government body. This change also
affects the Welsh broadcaster S4C.
the TV Licence is in fact a tax. From http://www.publications.parlia... :
Page 11:
The licence fee as a tax
22. Since our last report there has been a significant change in the position of the licence fee. In January 2006 the Office of National Statistics re-classified the licence fee as a tax. Previously, this payment had been classified in the National Accounts as a service charge. Explaining the change the Office of National Statistics (ONS) says “in line with the definition of a tax, the licence fee is a compulsory payment which is not paid solely for access to BBC services A licence is required to receive ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, satellite, cable”.
23. We are not convinced by this argument not least because it has been the case that a licence has been required to view any television channel in the UK for
many decades. Nevertheless the decision means that from now on the licence fee will be recognised as a form of hypothecated taxation.
24. Reclassification of the licence fee as a tax also has the consequence that the BBC is reclassified from the public non-financial corporations sub-sector to
the central government sector. The status of the BBC is thus also affected by this decision and it becomes a central government body. This change also
affects the Welsh broadcaster S4C.
25. When announcing its decision the ONS tried to offer some reassurance that “These classifications are solely for the purpose of producing National
Accounts and the statistical products based on them. This has no implication for the independence of these broadcasters”.
The upshot is that enforcement is now in the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system, rather than the civil system. In an attempt to remove any further doubt, the Government are attempting to legislate to reflect this position but sneakily: by abolishing the TV Licence and reintroducing it as an all-households tax (call it an "Air tax"?), so you have to pay it whether you have a TV or not, to also remove the requirement and burden of proof that a TV is in fact present.
the MOS 6502 was built in Pennsylvania.
Just sayin'.
the Model A was £235, the B £335 in 1981. I still have mine. Still works, too. (!)
uh... how about "I'm a lawyer"?
there is no such thing as a victimless crime. Where you see "R -v- ...", the R stands for "Regina", ie the CROWN. It is the CROWN on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen (the VICTIM) who are making claim against you.
bail is entirely constitutional. EXCESSIVE bail is not.
Apart from that, bail predates the United States Constitution by about five hundred years.
there are three companies running 14 prisons in the UK. Yes, I said companies. Her Majesty's Prison Service runs places like The Maze, still, which houses the most violent prisoners, but for just about all the "low risk", they're in Hotel Sodexo (which is really more of a Gulag, ask Melanie Shaw if you can get a visit - they're not letting ANYONE in to see her at the moment, not even a legal adviser or a family member), Group 3 (one got away - old joke, now better known as G4S, a throwback acronym to one of their previous names - Group 4 Securicor - they do most of the prisoner transport to and from court as well, and they're particularly famous for not only fucking up the security for the Olympics in 2012 and trying to fuck off with the money paid to them to run the security, they got their no-bid contract to run the prisons and transport renewed!), Serco (who do a lot of police desk work and probation as well as manage a few of the Category C (low risk) prisons).
uh... Kanye West
Whitney Houston (yeah. Bite me, women can be douchebags, too. Women doubly so, in fact. Ask Bobby, and don't forget to duck, they were as bad as each other.)
LeBron James
Chris "Tell Me I'm Pretty" Bosh (can go sit on a fucking railroad spike)
LaVar "Stole mah jerb!" Arrington
Tiger "Tag the cunt with a Titleist" Woods
No, seriously. It is a technology based on vinyl records, instead of encoding audio it encodes video as well - on an analogue groove track. Given a stable enough substrate - platinum base with a gold electroplating for instance, such as on the Voyager records - it'll last practically forever.
wouldn't be to ban strong encryption, it would be to make the assumption in Law that there mere *presence* of such an encryption system is enough indication of liability. Much like the assumption made that because something posesses a moving picture display that it is being used as a televisual broadcast receiver even if it isn't actually being used as such. It's easier to assume than it is to carry the burden of proof - with assumption comes the passing of that stick to the accused (who is on a loser because - and you've got to point this out or you're screwed - you can't prove a negative, it's a logical absurdity).
What this means to Granny is that if her computer is compromised with one of those cryptolocker things that encrypts her home folder and holds it ransom, she can't decrypt it because she doesn't have the key.
Strike 1 in English Law: possession being 9/10, if you have hold of a hard drive it is assumed that you have access to the data on it.
Strike 2: if there is an encryption it is also assumed that you have the key (see previous point about proving negatives).
Strike 3: Case that Granny is accused of having kiddie porn, the assumption can now be made that said kiddie porn is inside the encrypted container. Because the Law is now changed so that criminal liability now works on Balance of Probabilities (hence doesn't need a jury to decide Beyond Reasonable Doubt), Granny is going away for a while even if a: there is no kiddie porn - which she can't prove by unlocking the encrypted container, and b: she could prove it by breaking the encryption and opening the container - make the assumption that there are other containers containing the porn, which given the mental status of State prosecutors (and police), being utterly paranoid, she be fucked because the seed thought is there (that Granny is a bad person), and combined with the balance of probabilities, "No Smoke Without Fire" applies. NSWF CANNOT apply in Beyond Reasonable Doubt because BRD REQUIRES physical evidence! And encrypted container with no access to the data is NOT physical evidence. If it were we'd see prisons bursting with people jailed on the basis of unseen contents in sealed black boxes.
Lesson for all: if you're accused of causing harm or damage, DEMAND THAT JURY AND DO NOT BACK DOWN.
</run_on_rantish_rant>
tor != Bittorrent.
That is all.
all my EL gear is 1100V or 1500V :x