What does the law say about a case where I secretly upload KP to your public FTP server, where anyone could then stumble upon it -- thus making you an unwitting "distributor"??
As I recall, this has been used to bust BBSs in the distant past, when user-uploaded content was the rule and the sysop may not have time to vet each and every image, or direct knowledge of the legal age of all depicted persons. (frex, the Traci Lords incidents)
Like my point above -- does the fact that the school has the right to inspect my locker also give them the right to read my diary which I had stored in said locker? Personally, I don't think it does (the Constitution DOESN'T say "secure in their papers and effects, except when $Authority deems otherwise"), but per TFA's action, apparently I'm wrong.:(
This case is rather like passing notes in class. Okay, so you're not supposed to do it. If you're caught, should the teacher simply dispose of the note WITHOUT reading it, or should they read it aloud to the entire class? (which latter is the effect of a kiddieporn accusation -- you're made infamous before the entire world)
Guess it depends on whether the motivation is to keep order, or to embarrass the living shit out of the miscreant (or in the case of KP, ruin their lives permanently).
What would have happened had the "evidence" been, say, a diary??
While there may be no true expectation (or at least no true preservation) of privacy in a school locker, how does that extend to one's personal papers and effects?
IOW, How does a cell phone's saved data differ from a diary in that respect??
Fuzzy, indeed... and not quite the same as "it's your employer's property", tho similar enough that a precedent in one could become a precedent in the other.
So, I take it you never did anything stupid when you were a kid?? that you've always been mature enough to think through ALL the possible consequences??
And as to the official who contends "once it's on a cell phone, anyone can take it and put it on the internet, which is very dangerous"...
My next thought was, "Yeah, in fact anyone can propagate insane ideas via the internet -- such as this story, which villifies the kids for doing utterly harmless Stupid Kid Stuff, and helps reinforce the concept that EVERY depiction of an underage being is somehow kiddieporn."
And explain to me how such dumbass teenage photos wandering onto the internet is "dangerous"?? it might be embarrassing, and it might affect your personal reputation on down the line, but I don't see how it can harm anyone beyond that. What's a would-be perp going to do, reach through the JPG and twiddle your naughty bits?? Or maybe rape you in Photoshop??
That too... my thought was that if you KNOW your closest rival will also be your closest workmate, there's a variety of incentives -- tho as to whether "cooperation because you know you'll have to", or "bribery at the highest levels" would predominate...??
We already have a Prohibition 3.0 a-building -- it's the new war on animal agriculture, at every level -- it's already to the point where asset forfeiture is routine, with no due process. Sound familiar??
WTF *is* that? it looks like a bad cut done with a welding torch.
As to the who and why... I used to work for a guy who worked for Joe Sr. back in the Irish mob era, and he (having been on the spot and on the inside) said it was a mob hit, pure and simple; the coverup was because we couldn't be seen to have had a mobster in the White House.
He also told me it was ditto on RFK.
To summarize his story: JFK reneged on favours owed the mob, and paid for it. Mob asked RFK if he planned to continue his brother's (anti-Italian-mob) policies, RFK said You Betcha... BANG. Along comes Teddy, a shoo-in candidate... mob says to him, "So, are you as stupid as your brothers?" and he says NO SIR! and postehaste withdraws from the election without explanation, never to run again.
The more I learn about politics, the more inclined I've become to believe this version of events.
And having some idea how Chicago politics is run, I doubt this is the "hope" and "change" we've been looking for.:/
"Do remember that for quite some time after the Constitution was established, the Vice President was the second place contender in the Presidential election, not someone who ran and was elected with the President."
And I'm wondering if this might not be a better system than the party-pairs we elect today. Any thoughts about that??
So other than hangar space, not really any worse the average car's expenses (plus garaging if you had to rent that for your car).
Thanks for the clarification on ADs vs private aircraft. I haven't even thought about this stuff in years and a lot of details have fallen out of my brain, if they were ever there to begin with.:)
Geez, these light aircraft seem to be a good investment, if you bought 'em back when they were relatively new... Some of the oldies (1950s models) are going for 3 times the price they were 25 years ago, and I suspect that was already as much or more than they cost new.
Just curious, what can you expect to spend nowadays on GA hangar space and a mechanic? (Given that planes need to pass ADs hence have a forced maintenance schedule)
It can't be all that much in rural areas (given some of the scruffy types I've seen flying cropdusters), tho I expect it's rather a lot higher at metro airports.
Most of the people I know who own light aircraft have a cheap model -- used single-engine planes go for about the same as the concurrent cheapest new car on the market, and a plane's expected lifespan is about 10 times longer than the similarly-priced car. A lifespan of 40 to 70 years is not at all unusual.
Most of the people I know who own light aircraft do so because they need it, not because it's a toy. Cropdusters make their living with their planes. A lot of ranchers use them to keep an eye on remote grazing areas, and to get to town when the roads are snowed in or sunk in spring mud and NO wheeled vehicle can get through. State legislators in the vast midwest use them to quickly commute to the state capital for their often rather calendar-scattered legislative sessions -- otherwise they lose up to two days on the road each time, and not everyone can afford that (several times a month for several months of the year).
Yeah, a few people do just buy 'em as toys. But that's no different from someone who buys a Ferrari instead of a Ford, or (to put it in terms a basement dweller can more-readily grok) an Alienware instead of an eMachine.
The example of GPS inaccuracy (on your final linked page) also casts doubt on personal GPS, such as for tracking devices affixed to various "undesirables" (parolees, sex offenders, whatever is this week's social boogeyman). The pictured inaccuracy is roughly the same as "every trailer in the park" or "every house on this side of the block". It's probably good enough for finding a downed airplane, but hardly definitive for tracking a person.
I agree, and have started to question whether we really need any laws at all, other than the most basic "stay off my lawn" rules -- because after a certain point, laws cease to protect citizens, and serve mainly to create new classes of criminals. And eventually we arrive at the old Soviet jape, "All things not compulsory are forbidden".
If I must choose, I'd prefer more evil to less freedom. The interesting flipside is that more freedom also means I'm more free to defend myself (if necessary) against those small evils that are increasingly being micromanaged by the gov't.
It's functionally the same, tho -- with secret police spying, the diff is that the censorship affects the origin of the forbidden thought (or behaviour), rather than the recipient.
IOW, "you cannot express this thought" instead of "you cannot view this thought".
But the net effect is the same -- it's still censorship.
Slashdot Mirror
They may have to start their own town, where ONLY registered sex offenders are allowed to live.
The sad part is, I'm not sure if I'm being sarcastic or not. :/
Because anyone who has the balls to stand up and say "See here, this law is unjust" won't find their way into the jury box in the first place.
And in today's political climate, I'd be worried about being investigated after being so bold.
"... and did not distribute."
What does the law say about a case where I secretly upload KP to your public FTP server, where anyone could then stumble upon it -- thus making you an unwitting "distributor"??
As I recall, this has been used to bust BBSs in the distant past, when user-uploaded content was the rule and the sysop may not have time to vet each and every image, or direct knowledge of the legal age of all depicted persons. (frex, the Traci Lords incidents)
Like my point above -- does the fact that the school has the right to inspect my locker also give them the right to read my diary which I had stored in said locker? Personally, I don't think it does (the Constitution DOESN'T say "secure in their papers and effects, except when $Authority deems otherwise"), but per TFA's action, apparently I'm wrong. :(
This case is rather like passing notes in class. Okay, so you're not supposed to do it. If you're caught, should the teacher simply dispose of the note WITHOUT reading it, or should they read it aloud to the entire class? (which latter is the effect of a kiddieporn accusation -- you're made infamous before the entire world)
Guess it depends on whether the motivation is to keep order, or to embarrass the living shit out of the miscreant (or in the case of KP, ruin their lives permanently).
What would have happened had the "evidence" been, say, a diary??
While there may be no true expectation (or at least no true preservation) of privacy in a school locker, how does that extend to one's personal papers and effects?
IOW, How does a cell phone's saved data differ from a diary in that respect??
Fuzzy, indeed... and not quite the same as "it's your employer's property", tho similar enough that a precedent in one could become a precedent in the other.
So, I take it you never did anything stupid when you were a kid?? that you've always been mature enough to think through ALL the possible consequences??
Yeah, right.
As someone once put it, "The rich and the poor are equally free to sleep under the bridges."
And as to the official who contends "once it's on a cell phone, anyone can take it and put it on the internet, which is very dangerous"...
My next thought was, "Yeah, in fact anyone can propagate insane ideas via the internet -- such as this story, which villifies the kids for doing utterly harmless Stupid Kid Stuff, and helps reinforce the concept that EVERY depiction of an underage being is somehow kiddieporn."
And explain to me how such dumbass teenage photos wandering onto the internet is "dangerous"?? it might be embarrassing, and it might affect your personal reputation on down the line, but I don't see how it can harm anyone beyond that. What's a would-be perp going to do, reach through the JPG and twiddle your naughty bits?? Or maybe rape you in Photoshop??
That too... my thought was that if you KNOW your closest rival will also be your closest workmate, there's a variety of incentives -- tho as to whether "cooperation because you know you'll have to", or "bribery at the highest levels" would predominate ...??
We already have a Prohibition 3.0 a-building -- it's the new war on animal agriculture, at every level -- it's already to the point where asset forfeiture is routine, with no due process. Sound familiar??
How about instead of arguing, we abolish the HOA?
Think about that in terms of gov't. Discuss.
WTF *is* that? it looks like a bad cut done with a welding torch.
As to the who and why... I used to work for a guy who worked for Joe Sr. back in the Irish mob era, and he (having been on the spot and on the inside) said it was a mob hit, pure and simple; the coverup was because we couldn't be seen to have had a mobster in the White House.
He also told me it was ditto on RFK.
To summarize his story: JFK reneged on favours owed the mob, and paid for it. Mob asked RFK if he planned to continue his brother's (anti-Italian-mob) policies, RFK said You Betcha... BANG. Along comes Teddy, a shoo-in candidate... mob says to him, "So, are you as stupid as your brothers?" and he says NO SIR! and postehaste withdraws from the election without explanation, never to run again.
The more I learn about politics, the more inclined I've become to believe this version of events.
And having some idea how Chicago politics is run, I doubt this is the "hope" and "change" we've been looking for. :/
But first, elect someone who actually WANTS smaller government and preservation of the Constitution.
"Do remember that for quite some time after the Constitution was established, the Vice President was the second place contender in the Presidential election, not someone who ran and was elected with the President."
And I'm wondering if this might not be a better system than the party-pairs we elect today. Any thoughts about that??
True, which is why I figured self-harvesting plants in every variety would be better than One Big Harvester. :)
So other than hangar space, not really any worse the average car's expenses (plus garaging if you had to rent that for your car).
Thanks for the clarification on ADs vs private aircraft. I haven't even thought about this stuff in years and a lot of details have fallen out of my brain, if they were ever there to begin with. :)
And don't forget the venerable Trade-A-Plane -- do they still publish a print edition?
http://www.trade-a-plane.com/
(PS. site doesn't like older browsers)
Geez, these light aircraft seem to be a good investment, if you bought 'em back when they were relatively new... Some of the oldies (1950s models) are going for 3 times the price they were 25 years ago, and I suspect that was already as much or more than they cost new.
Just curious, what can you expect to spend nowadays on GA hangar space and a mechanic? (Given that planes need to pass ADs hence have a forced maintenance schedule)
It can't be all that much in rural areas (given some of the scruffy types I've seen flying cropdusters), tho I expect it's rather a lot higher at metro airports.
Most of the people I know who own light aircraft have a cheap model -- used single-engine planes go for about the same as the concurrent cheapest new car on the market, and a plane's expected lifespan is about 10 times longer than the similarly-priced car. A lifespan of 40 to 70 years is not at all unusual.
Most of the people I know who own light aircraft do so because they need it, not because it's a toy. Cropdusters make their living with their planes. A lot of ranchers use them to keep an eye on remote grazing areas, and to get to town when the roads are snowed in or sunk in spring mud and NO wheeled vehicle can get through. State legislators in the vast midwest use them to quickly commute to the state capital for their often rather calendar-scattered legislative sessions -- otherwise they lose up to two days on the road each time, and not everyone can afford that (several times a month for several months of the year).
Yeah, a few people do just buy 'em as toys. But that's no different from someone who buys a Ferrari instead of a Ford, or (to put it in terms a basement dweller can more-readily grok) an Alienware instead of an eMachine.
Thanks for all the excellent info.
The example of GPS inaccuracy (on your final linked page) also casts doubt on personal GPS, such as for tracking devices affixed to various "undesirables" (parolees, sex offenders, whatever is this week's social boogeyman). The pictured inaccuracy is roughly the same as "every trailer in the park" or "every house on this side of the block". It's probably good enough for finding a downed airplane, but hardly definitive for tracking a person.
Rent, hell... I bought it. Weirdest Series Ever.
I soooo wish McGoohan had gotten to the next set he'd talked about doing... would have been most interesting to see where his mind took us next.
I agree, and have started to question whether we really need any laws at all, other than the most basic "stay off my lawn" rules -- because after a certain point, laws cease to protect citizens, and serve mainly to create new classes of criminals. And eventually we arrive at the old Soviet jape, "All things not compulsory are forbidden".
If I must choose, I'd prefer more evil to less freedom. The interesting flipside is that more freedom also means I'm more free to defend myself (if necessary) against those small evils that are increasingly being micromanaged by the gov't.
It's functionally the same, tho -- with secret police spying, the diff is that the censorship affects the origin of the forbidden thought (or behaviour), rather than the recipient.
IOW, "you cannot express this thought" instead of "you cannot view this thought".
But the net effect is the same -- it's still censorship.
Your evil laughter has a distinctly Russian accent. I think the previous poster must have learned his evil laugh from a Brit.