Then, you go on to acknowledge that my flawed argument is in fact, in part, correct:
"Informants are most often criminals, yes."
Now, we venture into "fantasy land":
"In most cases, the informants are rolling on someone to negotiate a reduced sentence for themselves."
Would you think this would make their testimony more or less reliable?
"Further, the "entrapment line" is not exactly thin: to be considered entrapment, an accused criminal has to be forced to commit a crime that they were unwilling to commit, e.g. "Buy this weed or I shoot you." "
No, entrapment means that the criminal commits a crime that he would not have otherwise committed. Many of us are willing to buy drugs and wouldn't have to be forced to do so, but the undercover officer has to be careful to use specific words and not to use other words. That's because offering drugs to someone is creating a crime from thin air. Were you not there, no crime would have been comitted. Creating crimes is not the job of the police.
"If you willingly give an undercover cop a suitcase full of money for a trunk full of cocaine, it's not entrapment - it's good police work."
Actually, it sounds like the start to a great weekend, minus the undercover cop of course. So, selling cocaine is great police work, but buying it is a crime. Interesting that you have gotten that all straight in your head somehow.
Why did you even post this? Of course there is a connection between two lists of publicly availible information on private citizens that could lead to danger for those on the list. The only difference is that one list is held by the state and the other is privately held.
"This definitely seems like attack on law and order - when properly authorized and overseen, undercover investigations are one of the few legitimate means of acting to prevent crime in a way that can be ethically and logically defensible for a state."
Bullshit. Informants are often criminals themselves and are paid for their information. Undercover policework walks a very thin line to keep from crossing over into entrapment. Not to mention, almost all of the "wrongdoing" that this network of lies is trying to stop is victimless drug crime.
Not every device connects to a Windows machine. What if it is a hard-disk-based video camera? How about a security keyfob updated wirelessly by a specialized appliance? What about a car computer's internal storage subsystem?
No, it's because there are no actual feelings of guilt.
Why should I feel guilty for double-clicking on an icon, and then listening to a song? The idea that I have to pay someone to listen to music is a relatively new concept. I don't feel guilty in the least. The music industry, in addition to suing its customers is now trying to enact legislation that will exempt it from laws put in place to protect consumers.
It is manufacturing new crimes, and prosecuting 12-year-old children.
The music industry is evil, pure and simple, and I don't feel bad when I "steal" (not even the correct term) from evil. Getting my money is not some sort of god-given right. It has to be earned, and the music industry is not earning it. Humanity got along fine for thousands of years without them, and will do so again.
"Do you expect them to go through all tens of thousands of people?"
If they expect to collect money from them, and not create another PR disaster, yes. I can garauntee they will this time.
More Puritanism, really. Laws for liquor sales are very strict in most states. Some counties are completely dry. As in, no alchohol sales whatsoever. In some places, beer is mandated by law to be weaker (Utah, Oklahoma). And so on.
What's the point? Well, in order to control consumption, not taxation, some states have decided to completely control the sale of hard liquor and/or beer.
Ya know, it's really getting old hearing of these cases of people that are soooo poor they can't afford to buy this or that, but somehow manage to find it in their budget to pay for a broadband connection.
Dude, it's $30/month. You can afford $30/month and still be poor.
It's been well proven that a closed society with strict immigration and trade policies is far less efficient than an open one.
Huh? What's an "efficient" society? What is considered strict immigration? You mean, like Suadi Arabia or China? Neither of them are backwater also-rans.
The US has always been fairly open in terms of immigration and trade and we seem to be the largest world economy by far.
The US economy is large, but teetering on the verge of collapse. What worked in the past to make our economy great (slavery, child labor) might not always work. The "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach only works if it ain't broke.
What we have here is a bunch of L33t "US citizens" who can't compete with a poor third world country and who want their government to protect their financial interests. Boo Hoo.
That's what the government's for, among other things. To protect the life and livelyhood of its citizens. Who should we be crying to? Companies who are completely within the law, while sacrificing their workers to make a quick buck?
The government has one function. That is to make sure that the people aren't being screwed by those with money and power (read large corporations).
The government has a bunch of functions. Read the preamble to the Constitution sometime. It doesn't mention greedy corporations. Maybe it should, though.
In this case, our government should require a reciprocal agreement with India so that everyone has a fair shot.
What happened to "boo hoo"?
Protectionism is not the answer. Adaptation is the answer.
OK, you get to live in a shack with a concrete floor and no indoor plumbing, with your grandparents, aunts, uncles, and all of their children. Be satisfied with a fifth-grade education, and an astonishing illiteracy rate. You may/may not die from diseases for which the rest of the world has had a cure for centries. Let me know how it goes. Should be awesome.
That was a little simplistic, but it's the source of the problem. How many cars does your family have? How much are you paying on them each month? Is your house bigger than you really need? How many TVs do you own? How many activities are your children enrolled in? How many times a week does your family eat out instead of just cooking at home?
Note that all of these questions are rhetorical, and the answers are none of my business. Just something to think about. Foreign workers can get by on less because they spend less.
That was one of the more exciting uses for computers I have seen in a long time. Maybe I am overreacting, but this guy is a genius. Thanks for the link.
A lot of people contribute to Microsoft as well. They're just behind the moniker of a company label.
That and the fact that these patches apply to well over $1000 worth of software.
I am not a zealot, but when you are well aware that your software runs on ~90% of the machines in the world, and you are making billions of dollars a year off of it, you had better make it secure out of the box.
Slashdot Mirror
"So one case is the basis of your entire (flawed) argument?"
,a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/04/na tional/main542678.shtml">case.
Yep, just one
Then, you go on to acknowledge that my flawed argument is in fact, in part, correct:
"Informants are most often criminals, yes."
Now, we venture into "fantasy land":
"In most cases, the informants are rolling on someone to negotiate a reduced sentence for themselves."
Would you think this would make their testimony more or less reliable?
"Further, the "entrapment line" is not exactly thin: to be considered entrapment, an accused criminal has to be forced to commit a crime that they were unwilling to commit, e.g. "Buy this weed or I shoot you." "
No, entrapment means that the criminal commits a crime that he would not have otherwise committed. Many of us are willing to buy drugs and wouldn't have to be forced to do so, but the undercover officer has to be careful to use specific words and not to use other words. That's because offering drugs to someone is creating a crime from thin air. Were you not there, no crime would have been comitted. Creating crimes is not the job of the police.
"If you willingly give an undercover cop a suitcase full of money for a trunk full of cocaine, it's not entrapment - it's good police work."
Actually, it sounds like the start to a great weekend, minus the undercover cop of course. So, selling cocaine is great police work, but buying it is a crime. Interesting that you have gotten that all straight in your head somehow.
If they wanted a less dangerous job, they should have stayed in school and become lawyers.
Why did you even post this? Of course there is a connection between two lists of publicly availible information on private citizens that could lead to danger for those on the list. The only difference is that one list is held by the state and the other is privately held.
"This definitely seems like attack on law and order - when properly authorized and overseen, undercover investigations are one of the few legitimate means of acting to prevent crime in a way that can be ethically and logically defensible for a state."
Bullshit. Informants are often criminals themselves and are paid for their information. Undercover policework walks a very thin line to keep from crossing over into entrapment. Not to mention, almost all of the "wrongdoing" that this network of lies is trying to stop is victimless drug crime.
Total Fark.
Yes, and it's as old as the hills.
The linked articles look like a bunch of Fark forum drama to me. *YAWN*
AWESOME.
Not every device connects to a Windows machine. What if it is a hard-disk-based video camera? How about a security keyfob updated wirelessly by a specialized appliance? What about a car computer's internal storage subsystem?
The grandparent poster has a valid point.
No, it's because there are no actual feelings of guilt.
Why should I feel guilty for double-clicking on an icon, and then listening to a song? The idea that I have to pay someone to listen to music is a relatively new concept. I don't feel guilty in the least. The music industry, in addition to suing its customers is now trying to enact legislation that will exempt it from laws put in place to protect consumers.
It is manufacturing new crimes, and prosecuting 12-year-old children.
The music industry is evil, pure and simple, and I don't feel bad when I "steal" (not even the correct term) from evil. Getting my money is not some sort of god-given right. It has to be earned, and the music industry is not earning it. Humanity got along fine for thousands of years without them, and will do so again.
"Do you expect them to go through all tens of thousands of people?"
If they expect to collect money from them, and not create another PR disaster, yes. I can garauntee they will this time.
what the HELL is wrong with Americans' spelling these _ days
Fixed, fag. Now fuck off.
If the fucking government wants to tax us, be a man about it and tax me directly, don't sneak it in on the phone bill.
I'm with you, man. I blame those fees for bringing phones, and therefore soccer moms, to the suburbs.
More Puritanism, really. Laws for liquor sales are very strict in most states. Some counties are completely dry. As in, no alchohol sales whatsoever. In some places, beer is mandated by law to be weaker (Utah, Oklahoma). And so on.
What's the point? Well, in order to control consumption, not taxation, some states have decided to completely control the sale of hard liquor and/or beer.
Very cool. Have them light up, too. Or with three-way switches, it would be like starting a helicopter.
No Karma bonus, because that was the nerdiest thing I've ever written in my life.
Another great idea. Mod parent up, please.
Best first post ever.
This is a great idea.
Ya know, it's really getting old hearing of these cases of people that are soooo poor they can't afford to buy this or that, but somehow manage to find it in their budget to pay for a broadband connection.
Dude, it's $30/month. You can afford $30/month and still be poor.
How did this get modded up?
It's been well proven that a closed society with strict immigration and trade policies is far less efficient than an open one.
Huh? What's an "efficient" society? What is considered strict immigration? You mean, like Suadi Arabia or China? Neither of them are backwater also-rans.
The US has always been fairly open in terms of immigration and trade and we seem to be the largest world economy by far.
The US economy is large, but teetering on the verge of collapse. What worked in the past to make our economy great (slavery, child labor) might not always work. The "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach only works if it ain't broke.
What we have here is a bunch of L33t "US citizens" who can't compete with a poor third world country and who want their government to protect their financial interests. Boo Hoo.
That's what the government's for, among other things. To protect the life and livelyhood of its citizens. Who should we be crying to? Companies who are completely within the law, while sacrificing their workers to make a quick buck?
The government has one function. That is to make sure that the people aren't being screwed by those with money and power (read large corporations).
The government has a bunch of functions. Read the preamble to the Constitution sometime. It doesn't mention greedy corporations. Maybe it should, though.
In this case, our government should require a reciprocal agreement with India so that everyone has a fair shot.
What happened to "boo hoo"?
Protectionism is not the answer. Adaptation is the answer.
OK, you get to live in a shack with a concrete floor and no indoor plumbing, with your grandparents, aunts, uncles, and all of their children. Be satisfied with a fifth-grade education, and an astonishing illiteracy rate. You may/may not die from diseases for which the rest of the world has had a cure for centries. Let me know how it goes. Should be awesome.
I think you need to stop buying so much shit.
That was a little simplistic, but it's the source of the problem. How many cars does your family have? How much are you paying on them each month? Is your house bigger than you really need? How many TVs do you own? How many activities are your children enrolled in? How many times a week does your family eat out instead of just cooking at home?
Note that all of these questions are rhetorical, and the answers are none of my business. Just something to think about. Foreign workers can get by on less because they spend less.
The brat got caught fair and square, just like 260 others. Who cares if she's 12?
Anyone with a bit of common sense or compassion.
Regardless of how you feel about the DMCA, it is THE LAW.
So was slavery. Law != ethics.
The "Think of the children!" sobbing gets zero sympathy from me.
Way to be a heartless bastard.
That was one of the more exciting uses for computers I have seen in a long time. Maybe I am overreacting, but this guy is a genius. Thanks for the link.
Thanks to the sig character limit, it's a butchered version, and I don't have room to give him credit.
If they're so poor as to be living in welfare housing, why do they have a COMPUTER and INTERNET ACCESS?
A high-speed internet connection is a $30/mo investment in your childrens' education. Her priorities are right on track.
I know, I was thinking the same thing at first.
Hence the ";)".
A lot of people contribute to Microsoft as well. They're just behind the moniker of a company label.
That and the fact that these patches apply to well over $1000 worth of software.
I am not a zealot, but when you are well aware that your software runs on ~90% of the machines in the world, and you are making billions of dollars a year off of it, you had better make it secure out of the box.