All of that happens client side, making his DOS comment ridiculous.
First, 304 headers are generated by servers when a client requests a page that has not been modified since the last access date reported by the client. Clients don't generate those headers themselves, so, no, its not all client side.
Now if you understand how DDOS attacks work (All they do is open a LOT of connections), then you'll understand that having 50 or 75 separate links in your page, even if they ALL get cached, will still cause 50 or 75 separate connections just so your server can tell the client "304: Not Modified"
That, along with the fact that most systems are setup to limit http/https connections to 2 per client at a time and that many people have some not insignificant latency, is the reason behind embedding js directly in the html source and using sprites with CSS.
I only found 4 external JS files linked in their source, not 50, but the point is that 50 js files, even at 0 bytes each, with 25 million visitors is DDOS quality.
where do you people come up with this stupid shit about minority preferences? The federal law bans such practices, and has ever since Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964.
Non-construction (service and supply) contractors with 50 or more employees and government contracts of $50,000 or more are required, under Executive Order 11246, to develop and implement a written affirmative action program (AAP) for each establishment.
His advice ignores the benefits of leniency if you're guilty and you're almost positive you'll be caught anyway. For most of this discussion I've been focusing on the merits of talking to the police if you're innocent. But Officer Bruch also says that if people in the interrogation room answer questions and cooperate, then even if they're ultimately convicted, the police do testify to the judge that you were cooperative, and the judge can take that into account and reduce your prison sentence. That is at least theoretically another legitimate reason to violate Professor Duane's "Don't Talk To Cops" rule, if you're 99% sure that the police will find enough evidence to convict you anyway, you can hope for leniency by cooperating.
Would it not be more beneficial for your attorney to arrange some plea deal? As somebody who is not an expert on criminal law, I would keep my mouth shut until I talked to my attorney. I'd let the expert on criminal justice decide if it was worth confessing instead of hoping for the best.
Dang. You'd probably foolishly ask a doctor to treat your cancer, a mechanic to fix your car, GeekSqu... er, computer professionals to fix your computer, and meteorologists to predict the weather, wouldn't you?
As I said in my first article, that doesn't mean that this is not a valid argument for the Fifth Amendment. But it means that if this is the primary argument in favor of the Fifth Amendment, then what the people making this argument are really saying, is that the whole system is broken.
If your own narrow definition of a working system is one without flaws, then per your definition alone we're saying the whole system is broken.
However the truth is that not allowing somebody to remain silent, gives the State the power to force them to speak. This power is so great that it gave rise to the likes of the Spanish Inquisition.
The maxim nemo tenetur seipsum accusare had its origin in a protest against the inquisitorial and manifestly unjust methods of interrogating accused persons, which [have] long obtained in the continental system, and, until the expulsion of the Stuarts from the British throne in 1688, and the erection of additional barriers for the protection of the people against the exercise of arbitrary power, [were] not uncommon even in England. While the admissions or confessions of the prisoner, when voluntarily and freely made, have always ranked high in the scale of incriminating evidence, if an accused person be asked to explain his apparent connection with a crime under investigation, the ease with which the [384 U.S. 436, 443] questions put to him may assume an inquisitorial character, the temptation to press the witness unduly, to browbeat him if he be timid or reluctant, to push him into a corner, and to entrap him into fatal contradictions, which is so painfully evident in many of the earlier state trials, notably in those of Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, and Udal, the Puritan minister, made the system so odious as to give rise to a demand for its total abolition. The change in the English criminal procedure in that particular seems to be founded upon no statute and no judicial opinion, but upon a general and silent acquiescence of the courts in a popular demand. But, however adopted, it has become firmly embedded in English, as well as in American jurisprudence. So deeply did the iniquities of the ancient system impress themselves upon the minds of the American colonists that the States, with one accord, made a denial of the right to question an accused person a part of their fundamental law, so that a maxim, which in England was a mere rule of evidence, became clothed in this country with the impregnability of a constitutional enactment."
Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 596 -597 (1896).
Though I grabbed the quote from Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
And like you, I recall China's response to Google no longer censoring search results to be entirely positive. They don't disconnect you if you try to search for a blocked term, right?
The Chinese government has absolutely no problem taking very drastic steps that can be financially devastating to a company. You play ball, or you have problems doing business in China.
Many of the early posts seem to misunderstand the vulnerability issue here.
This is not about your phone getting infected with malware that allows it to detect your PC keyboard typing.
This is about me putting the vibration-detection app on my own phone, and then going to someone else's desk and recording them logging in.
So, imagine me going to my local AT&T store, bank, or my boss's computer, and casually setting my phone down while they log in to check my account or whatever.
Granted, some of those systems will require more than just a password (I might need their username, or the URL to log in, or perhaps their firewall only accepts certain IPs), but it's still a considerable weakness if this application is reliable and gets out in the open.
I can imagine keyboards that are "vibration silent" or special "vibration absorption" pads that will prevent this from happening. Either that, or customer service reps will start saying "Please remove your phone from my desk while I access your account."
1. Place underneath ATM.
2. Use any existing method of obtaining user's card #
Would be slightly less obvious than putting something over the buttons themselves. For RFID equipped cards, the entire setup could be out of sight.
Now if only the iPhone's battery could be hacked to last long enough to make this plausible...
No power, no electronics, just a bunch of keys with springs. The microphone in the computer reads the keypresses.
I've already replied, so I can't mod. This sounds like an awesome idea actually. No more replacing batteries in your wireless keyboard. Build it, I will buy one.
Who else would tout an all-powerful death star in an age of The Force? Or be upset if they discovered some 1% of the student body (200 of 15,000) discovered the trench Apple laid out to reach the iPad's exhaust port?
Who cares if they crack it? If you care, you're in for a whole lot of disappointment (Unless, of course, you're in support of the cracking) because it WILL happen.
1% of the users found ways around the blocking. The only thing that means is you have 200 students that would be interested in a new, advanced computer-related curriculum. The other 14,800 drones can continue their daily lives unaffected, and unaware, of this non-event.
So they're reassessing the rollout plan... No doubt it will return, soon, with an exhaust port big enough to fly a cargo freighter inside.
Hell, take the students that cracked the iPad, and put them in a class with the goal of blocking further hacks...
Who else would tout an all-powerful death star in an age of The Force? Or be upset if they discovered some 1% of the student body (200 of 15,000) discovered the trench Apple laid out to reach the iPad's exhaust port?
Who cares if they crack it? If you care, you're in for a whole lot of disappointment (Unless, of course, you're in support of the cracking) because it WILL happen.
1% of the users found ways around the blocking. The only thing that means is you have 200 students that would be interested in a new, advanced computer-related curriculum. The other 14,800 drones can continue their daily lives unaffected, and unaware, of this non-event.
So they're reassessing the rollout plan... No doubt it will return, soon, with an exhaust port big enough to fly a cargo freighter inside.
Choosing a single point to discuss is not missing anything, it is choosing to not allow unsubstantiated or otherwise false claims be the base of any discussion. It is normally the start of a discussion: getting the agreed upon facts out to avoid misunderstandings. Obviously that fails with condescending pricks that can't be bothered to verify the misinformation they're spewing.
Lets hear why you should be allowed to have all the stuff you want for free.
Because the best way to argue against them is with insults and the lack of an actual argument
Creation and possession of child porn £300 fine and 6 months suspended sentence.
Illegally downloading said child porn without the copyright holder permission - 10 years for each file and a max fine of $250,000 per image.
Your argument
The crux is - Copyright is a civil matter; but they've turned it into a criminal one
is based on verifiably false claims using mixed currencies showing either your carelessness or laziness in its formation, which is similar enough to what the sarcastic rebuff to the OP was deriding.
Your post being modded "+1 agree" several times inspired me to reply requesting that you back up your argument with something tangible.
There are already court precedent cases that some uses of 100% of the material are fair use. There are multiple factors that determine fair use. Percent of the work quoted or excerpted is not the only factor. And there is no magic percent that you have to cross. There are other factors such as character and nature of the use, and others I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.
And there are multiple factors to determine if it is child pornography. The base claim that identifying child porn is easy, and identifying fair use or copyright violations is impossible...
A human can instantly recognize something is child pr0n.
Neither man nor machine can tell whether something is copyright infringement.
, is lazy & wrong. I'm not offering the (or a) complete solution here, I'm just pointing out that identifying actual illegal child pornography and actual illegal copyright infringement is equally difficult for fringe cases and equally easy for run of the mill cases.
Google blocking one category, but not the other, has nothing to do with "can" and everything to do with "want". Offering It can't be done arguments is intellectually lazy.
It *is* an impossible task because while *all* child pornography is illegal - no exceptions - redistribution of copyrighted contents is illegal when the right owner didn't consent to it and legal when he did. It's the same thing as with photos of people - in some jurisdictions, you're only allowed to publish photos of people who consented to it (with perhaps some exceptions), but how do you divine the presence or absence of consent from the photo itself?
Probably the same way you "divine" the age of the participants in a particular "child pornography" image. Especially the hand-drawn ones where you don't have a telepath close enough to read the artist's mind.
Honestly, given 2 files: one a naked picture of a possible child, the other an mp3 of Michael Jackson's Bad, which is more difficult to identify, programatically, as illegal?
A human can instantly recognize something is child pr0n.
How? Have you never checked out a girl, only to find out later she was 16? Are all humans branded at age 18 so you instantly know who has reached their 18th birthday, and who is still 17.9999999?
Neither man nor machine can tell whether something is copyright infringement.
Ever? Not even with metadata attached to the file? Not even with a database, like the CDDB, with copyright information? Is there no such thing as image recognition software? Have people not written software to solve image based captchas? Is there not face recognition software being used in law enforcement today? I have an app on my phone right now that can identify nearly any song it hears in seconds.
Even if you can recognize something as a bit of a popular song or video clip, how can you know whether it is authorized (therefore not piracy) or whether it is fair use under the law?
Once you've identified a copyrighted song, image, or other work, you can then calculate what % of the entire file is using that copyrighted material. If the file is audio only, contains a song that is easily identifiable, and is the same length... you have a winner. Yes, as the files get more complicated it gets harder to identify copyrighted material being used improperly, but it is hardly impossible.
You can look at illegal child porn images and instantly know that they're illegal, but you can't just look at a file and know either way if its illegal or not
<sarcasm>Really? Do the stars in your child porn all have their state issued IDs tattooed on their chests or something so everybody can easily differentiate the 17 year old from the 18 year olds? Does your world not include genetic differences that may cause an adult to look younger than their age, or a child to look older? Have you never heard of makeup? Are there only 2 possible artistic renditions of humans with no possible variations in the middle: child & adult?</sarcasm>
Some child pornography is easy to spot. Just like some copyright infringement is easy to spot.
If you're going to argue "I can't do it" with a technical argument, then come up with one that isn't just lazy "I don't agree with the goal" bullshit. It makes you sound like a 5 year old dragging his heels claiming he doesn't know how to clean his room.
In fact, considering the age of the CDDB and the state of image recognition software today, I would contend we've had better technological options earlier, to combat piracy than child pornography.
Creation and possession of child porn £300 fine and 6 months suspended sentence.
Illegally downloading said child porn without the copyright holder permission - 10 years for each file and a max fine of $250,000 per image.
Copyright is theft!
The crux is - Copyright is a civil matter; but they've turned it into a criminal one.
Odd that UK levies child porn fines in British Pounds, but copyright infringement in dollars...
Oregon has legalized medical marijuana. I'm going to assume this isn't about fighting terrorism so much as it is relating to the government wanting to know who is taking medical marijuana so they can make more arrests and send more "criminals" to perform slave labor for their campaign donors in the private prison industry.
A doctor gives you a recommendation, which merely says the doctor believes you would benefit from using MJ.
No, this just more double-talk from Mr. Obama about fighting terrorism. Medical care is a right that everybody has... oh, but it also means the Feds get to see your records because you could just opt-out... Its not that much of a right. We're not listening to your phone calls, but we need warrant-less wiretaps too...
Of course he had to make a rape joke when talking about this, because he's that kind of loser, but it's not even correct. Anything that happened to him here was self-inflicted.
I voted for Gary Johnson. You could have too. Maybe next time you won't throw your vote away on a Demopublican like Obama.
So I get to choose between economic policies I believe in but civil liberties policies I hate, economic policies I hate and civil liberties policies I hate, or voting for an unwinnable candidate with economic policies I hate, but who won't grope me!
The question was "How do I vote against the current system?"; not "who fits my personal political views". 3rd party voting is how you do it because both major parties support the current system with all their energy.
With such extreme views though ("civil liberties policies you hate"; "unwinnable candidate"; "economic policies you hate"), there is no way for you to ever win, or be happy with who is in power, because nobody apparently is going to match your views exacting enough for you to feel anything other than contempt.
So for you personally to vote against the current system, I recommend you use the final option on the ballot that is always there: the blank line. Vote for Superman, Gary Coleman, or yourself for all I care.
Any vote that does not go to the Demopublicans is a vote against the current system.
What is wrong with Ethiopia vs other nations with similar GDPs? Ethiopia is quite different than Somalia in level of security and having a stuff like roads. It sounds like you seem to think the objection is the third world nations in general.
When someone brings up Somalia they are pointing out a well known failure of a government and the resulting failed state that it caused. You seem to be under the impression that this is not the natural outcome.
It is the natural outcome of every government everywhere, always and forever, because nothing is permanent. However, boycotting a government does not necessarily immediately result in Somalia. We've had two major government boycotts in US history already: The revolutionary war and the civil war. Both times we ended up with a relatively functioning government. We've also had numerous, smaller (read: less violent) boycotts that resulted in major changes like the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
That being said, when somebody suggests a course of action or idea, immediately flailing your arms and screaming "Move to Somalia then." or "Hitler Lover!" or "Racist" or whatever extreme response that doesn't address the topic is really no different, conversationally, than screaming, "I'm a dumbass!" You're ending the discussion and starting a round of emotional rhetoric.
Slashdot Mirror
How many of those were 304 not modified? ...
All of that happens client side, making his DOS comment ridiculous.
First, 304 headers are generated by servers when a client requests a page that has not been modified since the last access date reported by the client. Clients don't generate those headers themselves, so, no, its not all client side.
Now if you understand how DDOS attacks work (All they do is open a LOT of connections), then you'll understand that having 50 or 75 separate links in your page, even if they ALL get cached, will still cause 50 or 75 separate connections just so your server can tell the client "304: Not Modified"
That, along with the fact that most systems are setup to limit http/https connections to 2 per client at a time and that many people have some not insignificant latency, is the reason behind embedding js directly in the html source and using sprites with CSS.
I only found 4 external JS files linked in their source, not 50, but the point is that 50 js files, even at 0 bytes each, with 25 million visitors is DDOS quality.
where do you people come up with this stupid shit about minority preferences? The federal law bans such practices, and has ever since Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964.
Citation offered: http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/aa.htm
Non-construction (service and supply) contractors with 50 or more employees and government contracts of $50,000 or more are required, under Executive Order 11246, to develop and implement a written affirmative action program (AAP) for each establishment.
Would it not be more beneficial for your attorney to arrange some plea deal? As somebody who is not an expert on criminal law, I would keep my mouth shut until I talked to my attorney. I'd let the expert on criminal justice decide if it was worth confessing instead of hoping for the best.
Dang. You'd probably foolishly ask a doctor to treat your cancer, a mechanic to fix your car, GeekSqu... er, computer professionals to fix your computer, and meteorologists to predict the weather, wouldn't you?
As I said in my first article, that doesn't mean that this is not a valid argument for the Fifth Amendment. But it means that if this is the primary argument in favor of the Fifth Amendment, then what the people making this argument are really saying, is that the whole system is broken.
If your own narrow definition of a working system is one without flaws, then per your definition alone we're saying the whole system is broken.
However the truth is that not allowing somebody to remain silent, gives the State the power to force them to speak. This power is so great that it gave rise to the likes of the Spanish Inquisition.
The maxim nemo tenetur seipsum accusare had its origin in a protest against the inquisitorial and manifestly unjust methods of interrogating accused persons, which [have] long obtained in the continental system, and, until the expulsion of the Stuarts from the British throne in 1688, and the erection of additional barriers for the protection of the people against the exercise of arbitrary power, [were] not uncommon even in England. While the admissions or confessions of the prisoner, when voluntarily and freely made, have always ranked high in the scale of incriminating evidence, if an accused person be asked to explain his apparent connection with a crime under investigation, the ease with which the [384 U.S. 436, 443] questions put to him may assume an inquisitorial character, the temptation to press the witness unduly, to browbeat him if he be timid or reluctant, to push him into a corner, and to entrap him into fatal contradictions, which is so painfully evident in many of the earlier state trials, notably in those of Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, and Udal, the Puritan minister, made the system so odious as to give rise to a demand for its total abolition. The change in the English criminal procedure in that particular seems to be founded upon no statute and no judicial opinion, but upon a general and silent acquiescence of the courts in a popular demand. But, however adopted, it has become firmly embedded in English, as well as in American jurisprudence. So deeply did the iniquities of the ancient system impress themselves upon the minds of the American colonists that the States, with one accord, made a denial of the right to question an accused person a part of their fundamental law, so that a maxim, which in England was a mere rule of evidence, became clothed in this country with the impregnability of a constitutional enactment."
Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 596 -597 (1896).
Though I grabbed the quote from Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Has China banned Android phones, or are you simply making up hypothetical situations that are absurd in practice?
Ya, its not like China has ever blocked iTunes over providing access to undesirable content..
But really, doing something to hurt Apple's business in China? Like, building a replacement? No, they would never do that.
And like you, I recall China's response to Google no longer censoring search results to be entirely positive. They don't disconnect you if you try to search for a blocked term, right?
The Chinese government has absolutely no problem taking very drastic steps that can be financially devastating to a company. You play ball, or you have problems doing business in China.
This is a fantastic id4589074VTJIL4D5QX3T9JFDCGJea.
Sorry, my C3409TOIKJERC2RIOKFSOI GJRIOT cat just jumped on and off my desk.
Sounds like you need better software then.
Many of the early posts seem to misunderstand the vulnerability issue here.
This is not about your phone getting infected with malware that allows it to detect your PC keyboard typing.
This is about me putting the vibration-detection app on my own phone, and then going to someone else's desk and recording them logging in.
So, imagine me going to my local AT&T store, bank, or my boss's computer, and casually setting my phone down while they log in to check my account or whatever.
Granted, some of those systems will require more than just a password (I might need their username, or the URL to log in, or perhaps their firewall only accepts certain IPs), but it's still a considerable weakness if this application is reliable and gets out in the open.
I can imagine keyboards that are "vibration silent" or special "vibration absorption" pads that will prevent this from happening. Either that, or customer service reps will start saying "Please remove your phone from my desk while I access your account."
1. Place underneath ATM.
2. Use any existing method of obtaining user's card #
Would be slightly less obvious than putting something over the buttons themselves. For RFID equipped cards, the entire setup could be out of sight.
Now if only the iPhone's battery could be hacked to last long enough to make this plausible...
No power, no electronics, just a bunch of keys with springs. The microphone in the computer reads the keypresses.
I've already replied, so I can't mod. This sounds like an awesome idea actually. No more replacing batteries in your wireless keyboard. Build it, I will buy one.
Who else would tout an all-powerful death star in an age of The Force? Or be upset if they discovered some 1% of the student body (200 of 15,000) discovered the trench Apple laid out to reach the iPad's exhaust port?
Who cares if they crack it? If you care, you're in for a whole lot of disappointment (Unless, of course, you're in support of the cracking) because it WILL happen.
1% of the users found ways around the blocking. The only thing that means is you have 200 students that would be interested in a new, advanced computer-related curriculum. The other 14,800 drones can continue their daily lives unaffected, and unaware, of this non-event.
So they're reassessing the rollout plan... No doubt it will return, soon, with an exhaust port big enough to fly a cargo freighter inside.
Hell, take the students that cracked the iPad, and put them in a class with the goal of blocking further hacks...
Who cares if they crack it? If you care, you're in for a whole lot of disappointment (Unless, of course, you're in support of the cracking) because it WILL happen.
1% of the users found ways around the blocking. The only thing that means is you have 200 students that would be interested in a new, advanced computer-related curriculum. The other 14,800 drones can continue their daily lives unaffected, and unaware, of this non-event.
So they're reassessing the rollout plan... No doubt it will return, soon, with an exhaust port big enough to fly a cargo freighter inside.
good day.
Lets hear why you should be allowed to have all the stuff you want for free.
Because the best way to argue against them is with insults and the lack of an actual argument
Creation and possession of child porn £300 fine and 6 months suspended sentence. Illegally downloading said child porn without the copyright holder permission - 10 years for each file and a max fine of $250,000 per image.
Your argument
The crux is - Copyright is a civil matter; but they've turned it into a criminal one
is based on verifiably false claims using mixed currencies showing either your carelessness or laziness in its formation, which is similar enough to what the sarcastic rebuff to the OP was deriding.
Your post being modded "+1 agree" several times inspired me to reply requesting that you back up your argument with something tangible.
I missed nothing here.
There are already court precedent cases that some uses of 100% of the material are fair use. There are multiple factors that determine fair use. Percent of the work quoted or excerpted is not the only factor. And there is no magic percent that you have to cross. There are other factors such as character and nature of the use, and others I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.
And there are multiple factors to determine if it is child pornography. The base claim that identifying child porn is easy, and identifying fair use or copyright violations is impossible...
A human can instantly recognize something is child pr0n. Neither man nor machine can tell whether something is copyright infringement.
, is lazy & wrong. I'm not offering the (or a) complete solution here, I'm just pointing out that identifying actual illegal child pornography and actual illegal copyright infringement is equally difficult for fringe cases and equally easy for run of the mill cases.
Google blocking one category, but not the other, has nothing to do with "can" and everything to do with "want". Offering It can't be done arguments is intellectually lazy.
It *is* an impossible task because while *all* child pornography is illegal - no exceptions - redistribution of copyrighted contents is illegal when the right owner didn't consent to it and legal when he did. It's the same thing as with photos of people - in some jurisdictions, you're only allowed to publish photos of people who consented to it (with perhaps some exceptions), but how do you divine the presence or absence of consent from the photo itself?
Probably the same way you "divine" the age of the participants in a particular "child pornography" image. Especially the hand-drawn ones where you don't have a telepath close enough to read the artist's mind.
Honestly, given 2 files: one a naked picture of a possible child, the other an mp3 of Michael Jackson's Bad, which is more difficult to identify, programatically, as illegal?
A human can instantly recognize something is child pr0n.
How? Have you never checked out a girl, only to find out later she was 16? Are all humans branded at age 18 so you instantly know who has reached their 18th birthday, and who is still 17.9999999?
Neither man nor machine can tell whether something is copyright infringement.
Ever? Not even with metadata attached to the file? Not even with a database, like the CDDB, with copyright information? Is there no such thing as image recognition software? Have people not written software to solve image based captchas? Is there not face recognition software being used in law enforcement today? I have an app on my phone right now that can identify nearly any song it hears in seconds.
Even if you can recognize something as a bit of a popular song or video clip, how can you know whether it is authorized (therefore not piracy) or whether it is fair use under the law?
Once you've identified a copyrighted song, image, or other work, you can then calculate what % of the entire file is using that copyrighted material. If the file is audio only, contains a song that is easily identifiable, and is the same length... you have a winner. Yes, as the files get more complicated it gets harder to identify copyrighted material being used improperly, but it is hardly impossible.
You can look at illegal child porn images and instantly know that they're illegal, but you can't just look at a file and know either way if its illegal or not
<sarcasm>Really? Do the stars in your child porn all have their state issued IDs tattooed on their chests or something so everybody can easily differentiate the 17 year old from the 18 year olds? Does your world not include genetic differences that may cause an adult to look younger than their age, or a child to look older? Have you never heard of makeup? Are there only 2 possible artistic renditions of humans with no possible variations in the middle: child & adult?</sarcasm>
Some child pornography is easy to spot. Just like some copyright infringement is easy to spot.
If you're going to argue "I can't do it" with a technical argument, then come up with one that isn't just lazy "I don't agree with the goal" bullshit. It makes you sound like a 5 year old dragging his heels claiming he doesn't know how to clean his room.
In fact, considering the age of the CDDB and the state of image recognition software today, I would contend we've had better technological options earlier, to combat piracy than child pornography.
Creation and possession of child porn £300 fine and 6 months suspended sentence. Illegally downloading said child porn without the copyright holder permission - 10 years for each file and a max fine of $250,000 per image. Copyright is theft! The crux is - Copyright is a civil matter; but they've turned it into a criminal one.
Odd that UK levies child porn fines in British Pounds, but copyright infringement in dollars...
And where did you get your info? Wikipedia contributors seem to disagree with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Children_Act_1978#Sentencing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright,_Designs_and_Patents_Act_1988#Criminal_offences
oh, but I can't do it on their site... :(
Oregon has legalized medical marijuana. I'm going to assume this isn't about fighting terrorism so much as it is relating to the government wanting to know who is taking medical marijuana so they can make more arrests and send more "criminals" to perform slave labor for their campaign donors in the private prison industry.
http://public.health.oregon.gov/diseasesconditions/chronicdisease/medicalmarijuanaprogram/documents/ommphandbook.pdf Oregon is just like California: Their doctors are restricted by the Federal Government due to MJ being a Schedule I drug. i.e., there is no such thing as an MJ prescription. It does not go on your medical record. You cannot pick it up from a pharmacy.
A doctor gives you a recommendation, which merely says the doctor believes you would benefit from using MJ.
No, this just more double-talk from Mr. Obama about fighting terrorism. Medical care is a right that everybody has... oh, but it also means the Feds get to see your records because you could just opt-out... Its not that much of a right. We're not listening to your phone calls, but we need warrant-less wiretaps too...
He is a nosy good-for-nothing prick.
Of course he had to make a rape joke when talking about this, because he's that kind of loser, but it's not even correct. Anything that happened to him here was self-inflicted.
Ya, he asked for it by suing provocatively.
This is capitalism.
If you're not a customer, you're a commodity or an expense. Stop being surprised when you get treated like one.
I bet you lost money with Zynga's IPO too...
So I get to choose between economic policies I believe in but civil liberties policies I hate, economic policies I hate and civil liberties policies I hate, or voting for an unwinnable candidate with economic policies I hate, but who won't grope me!
Giant Douche, Turd Sandwich, meet Useless Jackass.
The question was "How do I vote against the current system?"; not "who fits my personal political views". 3rd party voting is how you do it because both major parties support the current system with all their energy.
With such extreme views though ("civil liberties policies you hate"; "unwinnable candidate"; "economic policies you hate"), there is no way for you to ever win, or be happy with who is in power, because nobody apparently is going to match your views exacting enough for you to feel anything other than contempt.
So for you personally to vote against the current system, I recommend you use the final option on the ballot that is always there: the blank line. Vote for Superman, Gary Coleman, or yourself for all I care.
Any vote that does not go to the Demopublicans is a vote against the current system.
The voting numbers don't reflect that. 98% vote to keep things as they are.
Please explain to me how to vote against it. There is no option for that on the ballot and the powers that be won't allow any.
I voted for Gary Johnson. You could have too. Maybe next time you won't throw your vote away on a Demopublican like Obama.
What is wrong with Ethiopia vs other nations with similar GDPs? Ethiopia is quite different than Somalia in level of security and having a stuff like roads. It sounds like you seem to think the objection is the third world nations in general.
When someone brings up Somalia they are pointing out a well known failure of a government and the resulting failed state that it caused. You seem to be under the impression that this is not the natural outcome.
It is the natural outcome of every government everywhere, always and forever, because nothing is permanent. However, boycotting a government does not necessarily immediately result in Somalia. We've had two major government boycotts in US history already: The revolutionary war and the civil war. Both times we ended up with a relatively functioning government. We've also had numerous, smaller (read: less violent) boycotts that resulted in major changes like the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
That being said, when somebody suggests a course of action or idea, immediately flailing your arms and screaming "Move to Somalia then." or "Hitler Lover!" or "Racist" or whatever extreme response that doesn't address the topic is really no different, conversationally, than screaming, "I'm a dumbass!" You're ending the discussion and starting a round of emotional rhetoric.
If one of their, say, law students, attended the school specifically to learn how to break the law and get away with it?