I think you're being mislead by the article you reference.
"To sustain a conviction of misprision of a felony, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: that the principal had committed and completed the felony alleged; that the defendant had full knowledge of that fact; that the defendant failed to notify authorities; and that the defendant took affirmative steps to conceal the crime of the principal."
So not only does the original person have to be found guilty, but you have to be proven to have witnessed the crime, have been proven to have not reported it, and have been proven to have taken measures to conceal the crime that the first guy was convicted of.
Also:
"Examples of acts to conceal fraud include: changing, hiding or destroying official records in order to conceal the fraudulent act; suppression of evidence regarding the fraudulent act; directlry or indirectly causing others to withold or surpress information pertaining to the fraudulent act; making false statements to investigators regarding the fraudulent act; or any other affirmative action designed to conceal the fraudulent act from authorities."
No, no, no. I can leave my front door wide open, and because the law says that my property is private you'd be guilty of tresspassing at the very least. Anything you do on my private property without my express permission is YOUR fault, unless I have an 'attractive nuisance' like a swimming pool.
How is a server not private property?
And I dare you to prove that a gun or unpatched server is an attractive nuisance.
"It simply shouldn't be POSSIBLE for an 18-year old to cause havoc like this."
Really not plausible. 18-year-olds drive. They work in restaurants. They work in crowded movie theaters and ballparks. Lots have access to the internet. Some of them may have access to chemicals. Others may have access to water supplys or power plants.
So do you recomend that everyone under, say, 21 be placed under house arrest?
So a family are out camping. A bad guy comes and murders almost the entire family, and badly wounds the remaining person.
Now along comes a second guy and murders the last person.
Is the last guy any less guilty of murder than the first guy? I'd agree that the first murderer should receive more time, but that certainly doesn't trivialize the second guy's actions.
Do you think that the technology in question should be expanded to encompass all of the rules of the road (certain space between vehicles, turn signals, lane changes, etc.) or just the ones that are considered to produce the highest fatality rates when broken?
That said, I'd like to see Highway Patrol officers ticketed for breaking the speed limit when not in the middle of an emergency.
As I've said in other posts, do you think that speeding would still be a revenue stream if people slowed down? I'd tend to think that after my first speeding ticket (on a side note, sounds like these would be tough to refute in court) I'd slow the heck down. Assuming that everyone on the road isn't made of money, I think this would put a curb on speeding, thus reducing the 'stream' down to nothing. With the old rules more heavily enforced, do you think that safety on the road would increase?
What if the government had an attitude that 'a little' stealing is fine?
"Asking whether a car that CAN'T do 150mph is safe at 150mph is a moot point, don't you think?"
My point was that there needs to be some modicum of equality on the heavily-trafficed motorways. Unless you have a special lane set aside for the much faster traffic. If you have cars (or drivers, for that matter) that can't do the same speed safely, you should probably try to make a limit that a high percentage of folks can all do together.
"The fact is that EVERY DAY there are people chipping up and down German autobahns at 130mph, yet they are not considered lunatics by the average German man in the street. If you do the same in Britain or the USA you're treated like a dangerous criminal"
Yeah, that's because if you do those speeds in Britain or the USA you ARE a dangerous criminal! Personally, I'd love to be able to drive to the limits of my car a driving ability, but chances are that the numbnuts that don't have the appropriate skills will go out and buy faster cars. And run into me and mine.
Also, with the amount of traffic in my area, you can't go that fast during daylight hours period.
That's funny... I was caught doing 55 in a 45, and my fine was $78. There was an extra $30 to take traffic school, and an extra $28 to actually take the class.
I wonder why fines are different for different people?
Perhaps not 100% safe, but I think that this type of system will improve things greatly. Of course, I'd rather see the money spent on robotic cars. Then there'd be no problem at all.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I would think that if I risked some time in prison for doing what I was about to do...I'd REALLY have to rethink my path in life.
"And any bystander seeing some kid playing with "PENIS" might call the police."
Well, maybe if he was in the middle of the park, or in the street. But in the privacy of his own home? Give a kid a break!
*shrug*
I look at it as one in the same.
And it keeps me from straying to the Dark Side, let me tell you.
Why do you think we have so many repeat criminals, if this is such a hardship?
So why do you think that this is not more of a deterrent to potential crimincals?
"Hm, if this does what I think it'll do and I'm caught, I could go to jail. Ah, hell with it! *clicks Send*
I agree.
The shocking part is that none of this disuades non-ciminals from becoming criminals and having this done to them!
I think you're being mislead by the article you reference.
"To sustain a conviction of misprision of a felony, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:
that the principal had committed and completed the felony alleged;
that the defendant had full knowledge of that fact;
that the defendant failed to notify authorities; and
that the defendant took affirmative steps to conceal the crime of the principal."
So not only does the original person have to be found guilty, but you have to be proven to have witnessed the crime, have been proven to have not reported it, and have been proven to have taken measures to conceal the crime that the first guy was convicted of.
Also:
"Examples of acts to conceal fraud include:
changing, hiding or destroying official records in order to conceal the fraudulent act;
suppression of evidence regarding the fraudulent act;
directlry or indirectly causing others to withold or surpress information pertaining to the fraudulent act;
making false statements to investigators regarding the fraudulent act;
or any other affirmative action designed to conceal the fraudulent act from authorities."
And the difference would be.....
No, no, no. I can leave my front door wide open, and because the law says that my property is private you'd be guilty of tresspassing at the very least. Anything you do on my private property without my express permission is YOUR fault, unless I have an 'attractive nuisance' like a swimming pool.
How is a server not private property?
And I dare you to prove that a gun or unpatched server is an attractive nuisance.
"It simply shouldn't be POSSIBLE for an 18-year old to cause havoc like this."
Really not plausible. 18-year-olds drive. They work in restaurants. They work in crowded movie theaters and ballparks. Lots have access to the internet. Some of them may have access to chemicals. Others may have access to water supplys or power plants.
So do you recomend that everyone under, say, 21 be placed under house arrest?
Um, no. What crime would I be guilty of, exactly?
Theft? No
Negligence? No.
Then what crime?
So a family are out camping. A bad guy comes and murders almost the entire family, and badly wounds the remaining person.
Now along comes a second guy and murders the last person.
Is the last guy any less guilty of murder than the first guy? I'd agree that the first murderer should receive more time, but that certainly doesn't trivialize the second guy's actions.
The original point (The difference is a *single* graffiti artist doesn't disrupt large portions of the economy) stands.
You may be reading the wrong article. The proper article is refering to unicast, not multicast.
That'd be a neat trick. There are only 60 hours in the timeframe listed.
:)
Is this some kind of Matrix-type second-lengthening thing?
Bill? A fattie? The only thing fat about Bill is his wallet.
Well, I'm not a chick and neither was the officer.
My point was that I was in the same general vicinity, yet received a smaller fine for breaking the speed limit by a greater amount.
I wonder what latitude there is in assigning fines...
So maybe we should get a collition together. "Stop speeding! Bring down the tyranny!"
Do you think we could do it?
So maybe you could just ride this out and not be one of the stupid people. Would that be so bad?
Ok, I'll agree with that.
Do you think that the technology in question should be expanded to encompass all of the rules of the road (certain space between vehicles, turn signals, lane changes, etc.) or just the ones that are considered to produce the highest fatality rates when broken?
That said, I'd like to see Highway Patrol officers ticketed for breaking the speed limit when not in the middle of an emergency.
As I've said in other posts, do you think that speeding would still be a revenue stream if people slowed down? I'd tend to think that after my first speeding ticket (on a side note, sounds like these would be tough to refute in court) I'd slow the heck down. Assuming that everyone on the road isn't made of money, I think this would put a curb on speeding, thus reducing the 'stream' down to nothing. With the old rules more heavily enforced, do you think that safety on the road would increase?
What if the government had an attitude that 'a little' stealing is fine?
"Asking whether a car that CAN'T do 150mph is safe at 150mph is a moot point, don't you think?"
My point was that there needs to be some modicum of equality on the heavily-trafficed motorways. Unless you have a special lane set aside for the much faster traffic. If you have cars (or drivers, for that matter) that can't do the same speed safely, you should probably try to make a limit that a high percentage of folks can all do together.
"The fact is that EVERY DAY there are people chipping up and down German autobahns at 130mph, yet they are not considered lunatics by the average German man in the street. If you do the same in Britain or the USA you're treated like a dangerous criminal"
Yeah, that's because if you do those speeds in Britain or the USA you ARE a dangerous criminal! Personally, I'd love to be able to drive to the limits of my car a driving ability, but chances are that the numbnuts that don't have the appropriate skills will go out and buy faster cars. And run into me and mine.
Also, with the amount of traffic in my area, you can't go that fast during daylight hours period.
And you don't think that all this is to get people to SLOW DOWN?
I mean, if people actually slowed down there would be no revenue. RIGHT?
That's funny... I was caught doing 55 in a 45, and my fine was $78. There was an extra $30 to take traffic school, and an extra $28 to actually take the class.
I wonder why fines are different for different people?
"The future is here! Limitless revenue for the government!"
Limitless revenue? From people who are breaking the law? *GASP* The horror!
Limitless? Really?
Perhaps not 100% safe, but I think that this type of system will improve things greatly. Of course, I'd rather see the money spent on robotic cars. Then there'd be no problem at all. :)
Um, yeah they do. That would be the people who manage the road you're driving on.
As a local traffic court judge is known for quoting after *every* case 'Driving is a privilege, not a right.' Granted, it's not god-given...
"Yet despite this Germany's traffic fatality rate is about half of the United States"
I hope that rate is a percentage, because the USA has a *lot* more population than Germany does...