Well, then, tell her for a nice little raise, you'll route your network so that all financial transactions and email take the shortest possible routes. The savings will more than make up the difference, after all...
They are Congresscritters indeed, which is why they're only to be allowed to post official business where there is a level of decorum and good taste. This is to keep it clearly separate from their personal dealings. If everyone knows the official Congressional business is on respectable sites, then it's easy to spot the difference when Mr. Kennedy posts to alt.binaries.erotica.watersports.car.in.pond.pics instead. (Yes, I know that's not what people usually mean by "watersports" when talking about sex, but it's a good pun.)
It's not called the "Criminal technical security bypass act" or somesuch. It's the "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act". I'd say this woman committed the acts prohibited by the wording of the law, which are is enough to find in this thread or via Google (I posted myself some quotes of the law and saw where others did the same).
This woman will still have an arraignment, trial by jury, and if convicted will have a chance at appeal and a separate sentencing hearing even if the prosecutor is the one who chose to file charges. The whole system has to fail her in order for the rule of law and due process to be in danger, not just one person.
I imagine he is prosecuting everyone who used a fake age on MySpace with the intent and effect of convincing a clinically depressed 13-year-old girl to kill herself.
There are too many laws and not enough courts or prisons to prosecute every action that is technically a crime. That's not the prosecutor's fault. Prosecutors tend to only prosecute cases in which they think there's actual harm done and a chance at conviction. If there's no room in the ideal system for that sort of human prerogative, then we need fewer laws or more resources to imprison everyone in the country.
Homeowner's associations, neighborhood covenants, and county health codes can ban some of those things, too.
In my town, if your grass gets taller than 10" the city mows it and tacks a $75 fee onto the taxes for the property. If you don't pay the taxes, they can sell your land for the amount of the taxes. It's not just an appearance issue, either. It's motivated by the fact that ticks, snakes, mice, and other vermin like high grass.
Indeed, if someone else buys the land and you are free to do whatever you want on it despite their disagreement, they have lost the freedom to control their holdings. Their hard work and good fortune went into securing, improving, and maintaining the property, so why should someone else have the right to come along and destroy or damage it?
Just a fine point of distinction: the NRA isn't trying to tell everyone that they must accept the public onto their land. They are simply saying that once you accept someone onto your land, their right to personal protection overrides your right to dictate their keeping of arms. You may disagree with that balancing of rights, but it doesn't really "abolish" anything. It just places one right ahead of the other in a specific instance.
Harassment based on sex, color, religion, or anything else and unregulated buying and selling of goods have little to do with one another. It's possible to have a market that's free of economic regulation and product selection in which the participants are still held to treating people and their money equally.
Even if not, the BMI music publishing group grew up from ASCAP not wanting to sell "black music". BMI sold what ASCAP wouldn't sell, and cheaper than ASCAP's prices. The market corrected the situation quite nicely.
Housing is a particularly thorny market in which to allow discrimination, and it's difficult to fix by free market standards. So there's a good argument against.
Well, there are probably good counterexamples, but the drug cartel one is flawed. There's no such thing as a cartel for illegal drugs in a truly free market without government interference, because it's government interference in the free market that makes it illegal to buy and sell certain drugs in the first place.
It's violent enforcement of anti-drug laws against sellers and shippers that allows violent cartels to form. If it was legal and commonplace to transport and sell the drugs, anyone who was attacked for their share of the market could report it as a crime. The main reason violence among rival drug trafficking groups exists on the level it does is that they would go to prison for selling the drugs if they reported violence against themselves to authorities. So they must also defend themselves with force if they wish to continue selling the drugs.
You have a mistaken concept of a leasehold. A lessee typically has all the rights of a freehold owner other than selling, changing, or destroying/devaluing the property for the term of the lease. Any lease you sign that says otherwise is a contract agreement between you and the lessor.
When you're using Flickr, for free, you're not leasing anything. You're using a site Yahoo owns and operates for the benefit of Yahoo. It's not the same thing at all.
This has nothing to do with prosecution for expressing one's self. It has to do with Yahoo not wanting the expression representing their service. If the guy wants to put pics on a web site without anyone else deleting them, he can buy a hosting account and have a web site. If his hosting company deletes his site, he can get a co-located server or get a DS1 or E1 to his office and set up a server.
This is just the same as a store owner telling you you can't yell "Fuck!" in their store or write the word on the little free community bulletin board some stores have. It's their property you're on. Go onto you own property or onto public property if you want to use a form of expression the store doesn't want in their store.
This is just a guess with no etymological (or entomological) evidence to back it up, but I've always wondered if "bug" wasn't from "bugbear" -- unseen mischievous forces which screw with how your stuff works.
This would be as in the Merriam-Webster definition, particularly 2b: "a continuing source of irritation". Of course, 2a might sometimes fit: "an object or source of dread". Perhaps even definition 1 after along shift of maintenance work: "an imaginary goblin or specter used to excite fear".
Okay, so "significant impairment in day to day function", in a spectrum disorder, to you means that a high-functioning Aspergers patient cannot communicate non-emotional ideas clearly?
The major issue with high-intelligence Aspergers tend to be not functioning well socially, usually because of an inability to relate to the emotions of others, isn't that right?
In fact, one of the things that differs between Aspergers and the traditional autism diagnosis is that people with Aspergers tend to suffer less from a low IQ but are markedly distant, unsocial or antisocial, suspicious of authority, and feel outcast from normal social groups, right?
Asperger's is characterized separately from other autistic spectrum disorders specifically by the distinction that there is no delay in verbal communication, language skills, or cognitive development, right?
People with Aspergers tend to fall normally along the curve of IQ, have excellent vocabularies, communicate non-social ideas very clearly, and suffer from lack of understanding of social conventions, body language, and the causes and signs of emotions in others. right?
Asperger's and autism are spectrum disorders. People with very high intelligence and Asperger's tend to blend into everyday society quite well in most ways, but they still think very differently. Think Spock as opposed to Kirk or McCoy. Everything is logical, because emotions are faint and unreliable.
Well, Jesus said one should turn the other cheek, and that one's charity should go beyond a thief's greed, too. He said you'd be blessed for being martyred in the name of God, but he also said that there was no greater love than giving one's life for a friend. I think that could be taken to mean that you shouldn't defend yourself, but that it's okay to defend others from attack at your own peril.
Therefore, I think killing a person attacking your friend or neighbor, if that person cannot be safely subdued, would be considered acceptable under certain understandings of those passages.
Well, let me qualify that by saying that some of us believe certain laws are bullshit and those who break them are hardly criminals. Handgun bans in DC and Chicago, non-violent and responsible use of drugs no more harmful than legal ones by adults, and shooting off bottle rockets with due care in the state of Illinois without a special permit come to mind.
While people are being fined and locked up for things they should have the right to do and that aren't hurting anyone except maybe themselves, thieves, robbers, rapists, and murderers are getting out early because prisons are crowded. It'd be much better if the laws that really matter to people were enforced more strictly and more uniformly and the rest were just stricken.
Okay, so that creates a doubt. The legal standard is called "reasonable doubt". Is the doubt created by your specific daydream reasonable?
I doubted Reiser was guilty at first, too. All along I wanted to believe he was innocent, but the evidence just keeps stacking against him.
In your scenario, even if he knew about a shooting and didn't report it, he's guilty of something. He tampered with evidence, failed to report the crime, and may be complicit in the murder. Not to mention that there's very little way to prove your story even if it was how it really happened.
I'm sorry, and I really can sympathize with not enjoying the thought, but the man's a murderer.
No, they're not turning the terms of service into criminal law at all. What they're doing is prosecuting someone under a law Congress passed and the President signed which makes it illegal to access a computer you're not authorized to access for purposes specifically stated in that law or other illegal purposes. If you don't like the law, it's not the prosecutor's fault. Write your Congresscritters.
Well, the harassment is part of the Terms and Conditions over at MySpace, and so is using the service to mislead someone. So the fake information in her profile may not even be the terms they are using in the case to show she was an unauthorized user.
This woman didn't scare the girl. She specifically had a fictional boyfriend for the girl, had the fictional boyfriend dump her, and told her the world would be a better place if she killed herself. She did this knowing the girl was being counseled and medicated for depression.
I never claimed that you said she was using a famous person's name. You used that as an example, and I compared what happened to your example.
The law's a stretch, but I'm not a lawyer and the prosecutor is, so I'll allow the lawyers and the judge to decide if it's too big a stretch. I, in my lay reading of the issue, think there's a case to be made, but I wouldn't want to have to make it.
Bullshit. MySpace specifically forbids using the service if you give a fake age. Look it up. It's the first rule in their terms and conditions. It also prohibits use of the site for harassment, inducement to physical harm of any party.
I don't think "almost anybody" fakes the age, name, and romantic interest in order to harass a minor into suicide. There is specific language in the law being applied, and the acts this woman committed are within those words.
There's no law against tearing the tag off your own mattress. There's a law against tearing the tag off a mattress you're going to sell to a consumer.
People with allergies have a right to know their furniture isn't going to kill them. Once you've been informed by the tag on a mattress you've bought, you can do whatever you like to the tag.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, then, tell her for a nice little raise, you'll route your network so that all financial transactions and email take the shortest possible routes. The savings will more than make up the difference, after all...
They are Congresscritters indeed, which is why they're only to be allowed to post official business where there is a level of decorum and good taste. This is to keep it clearly separate from their personal dealings. If everyone knows the official Congressional business is on respectable sites, then it's easy to spot the difference when Mr. Kennedy posts to alt.binaries.erotica.watersports.car.in.pond.pics instead. (Yes, I know that's not what people usually mean by "watersports" when talking about sex, but it's a good pun.)
It's not called the "Criminal technical security bypass act" or somesuch. It's the "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act". I'd say this woman committed the acts prohibited by the wording of the law, which are is enough to find in this thread or via Google (I posted myself some quotes of the law and saw where others did the same).
This woman will still have an arraignment, trial by jury, and if convicted will have a chance at appeal and a separate sentencing hearing even if the prosecutor is the one who chose to file charges. The whole system has to fail her in order for the rule of law and due process to be in danger, not just one person.
I imagine he is prosecuting everyone who used a fake age on MySpace with the intent and effect of convincing a clinically depressed 13-year-old girl to kill herself.
There are too many laws and not enough courts or prisons to prosecute every action that is technically a crime. That's not the prosecutor's fault. Prosecutors tend to only prosecute cases in which they think there's actual harm done and a chance at conviction. If there's no room in the ideal system for that sort of human prerogative, then we need fewer laws or more resources to imprison everyone in the country.
I believe so, and on a site the poster doesn't own or lease, too.
Homeowner's associations, neighborhood covenants, and county health codes can ban some of those things, too.
In my town, if your grass gets taller than 10" the city mows it and tacks a $75 fee onto the taxes for the property. If you don't pay the taxes, they can sell your land for the amount of the taxes. It's not just an appearance issue, either. It's motivated by the fact that ticks, snakes, mice, and other vermin like high grass.
Indeed, if someone else buys the land and you are free to do whatever you want on it despite their disagreement, they have lost the freedom to control their holdings. Their hard work and good fortune went into securing, improving, and maintaining the property, so why should someone else have the right to come along and destroy or damage it?
Just a fine point of distinction: the NRA isn't trying to tell everyone that they must accept the public onto their land. They are simply saying that once you accept someone onto your land, their right to personal protection overrides your right to dictate their keeping of arms. You may disagree with that balancing of rights, but it doesn't really "abolish" anything. It just places one right ahead of the other in a specific instance.
Harassment based on sex, color, religion, or anything else and unregulated buying and selling of goods have little to do with one another. It's possible to have a market that's free of economic regulation and product selection in which the participants are still held to treating people and their money equally.
Even if not, the BMI music publishing group grew up from ASCAP not wanting to sell "black music". BMI sold what ASCAP wouldn't sell, and cheaper than ASCAP's prices. The market corrected the situation quite nicely.
Housing is a particularly thorny market in which to allow discrimination, and it's difficult to fix by free market standards. So there's a good argument against.
Well, there are probably good counterexamples, but the drug cartel one is flawed. There's no such thing as a cartel for illegal drugs in a truly free market without government interference, because it's government interference in the free market that makes it illegal to buy and sell certain drugs in the first place.
It's violent enforcement of anti-drug laws against sellers and shippers that allows violent cartels to form. If it was legal and commonplace to transport and sell the drugs, anyone who was attacked for their share of the market could report it as a crime. The main reason violence among rival drug trafficking groups exists on the level it does is that they would go to prison for selling the drugs if they reported violence against themselves to authorities. So they must also defend themselves with force if they wish to continue selling the drugs.
You have a mistaken concept of a leasehold. A lessee typically has all the rights of a freehold owner other than selling, changing, or destroying/devaluing the property for the term of the lease. Any lease you sign that says otherwise is a contract agreement between you and the lessor.
When you're using Flickr, for free, you're not leasing anything. You're using a site Yahoo owns and operates for the benefit of Yahoo. It's not the same thing at all.
This has nothing to do with prosecution for expressing one's self. It has to do with Yahoo not wanting the expression representing their service. If the guy wants to put pics on a web site without anyone else deleting them, he can buy a hosting account and have a web site. If his hosting company deletes his site, he can get a co-located server or get a DS1 or E1 to his office and set up a server.
This is just the same as a store owner telling you you can't yell "Fuck!" in their store or write the word on the little free community bulletin board some stores have. It's their property you're on. Go onto you own property or onto public property if you want to use a form of expression the store doesn't want in their store.
This is just a guess with no etymological (or entomological) evidence to back it up, but I've always wondered if "bug" wasn't from "bugbear" -- unseen mischievous forces which screw with how your stuff works.
This would be as in the Merriam-Webster definition, particularly 2b: "a continuing source of irritation". Of course, 2a might sometimes fit: "an object or source of dread". Perhaps even definition 1 after along shift of maintenance work: "an imaginary goblin or specter used to excite fear".
Okay, so "significant impairment in day to day function", in a spectrum disorder, to you means that a high-functioning Aspergers patient cannot communicate non-emotional ideas clearly?
The major issue with high-intelligence Aspergers tend to be not functioning well socially, usually because of an inability to relate to the emotions of others, isn't that right?
In fact, one of the things that differs between Aspergers and the traditional autism diagnosis is that people with Aspergers tend to suffer less from a low IQ but are markedly distant, unsocial or antisocial, suspicious of authority, and feel outcast from normal social groups, right?
Asperger's is characterized separately from other autistic spectrum disorders specifically by the distinction that there is no delay in verbal communication, language skills, or cognitive development, right?
People with Aspergers tend to fall normally along the curve of IQ, have excellent vocabularies, communicate non-social ideas very clearly, and suffer from lack of understanding of social conventions, body language, and the causes and signs of emotions in others. right?
Asperger's and autism are spectrum disorders. People with very high intelligence and Asperger's tend to blend into everyday society quite well in most ways, but they still think very differently. Think Spock as opposed to Kirk or McCoy. Everything is logical, because emotions are faint and unreliable.
Well, Jesus said one should turn the other cheek, and that one's charity should go beyond a thief's greed, too. He said you'd be blessed for being martyred in the name of God, but he also said that there was no greater love than giving one's life for a friend. I think that could be taken to mean that you shouldn't defend yourself, but that it's okay to defend others from attack at your own peril.
Therefore, I think killing a person attacking your friend or neighbor, if that person cannot be safely subdued, would be considered acceptable under certain understandings of those passages.
Maybe he did and his rage was over being turned away. ;-)
Well, let me qualify that by saying that some of us believe certain laws are bullshit and those who break them are hardly criminals. Handgun bans in DC and Chicago, non-violent and responsible use of drugs no more harmful than legal ones by adults, and shooting off bottle rockets with due care in the state of Illinois without a special permit come to mind.
While people are being fined and locked up for things they should have the right to do and that aren't hurting anyone except maybe themselves, thieves, robbers, rapists, and murderers are getting out early because prisons are crowded. It'd be much better if the laws that really matter to people were enforced more strictly and more uniformly and the rest were just stricken.
Okay, so that creates a doubt. The legal standard is called "reasonable doubt". Is the doubt created by your specific daydream reasonable?
I doubted Reiser was guilty at first, too. All along I wanted to believe he was innocent, but the evidence just keeps stacking against him.
In your scenario, even if he knew about a shooting and didn't report it, he's guilty of something. He tampered with evidence, failed to report the crime, and may be complicit in the murder. Not to mention that there's very little way to prove your story even if it was how it really happened.
I'm sorry, and I really can sympathize with not enjoying the thought, but the man's a murderer.
No, they're not turning the terms of service into criminal law at all. What they're doing is prosecuting someone under a law Congress passed and the President signed which makes it illegal to access a computer you're not authorized to access for purposes specifically stated in that law or other illegal purposes. If you don't like the law, it's not the prosecutor's fault. Write your Congresscritters.
Well, the harassment is part of the Terms and Conditions over at MySpace, and so is using the service to mislead someone. So the fake information in her profile may not even be the terms they are using in the case to show she was an unauthorized user.
This woman didn't scare the girl. She specifically had a fictional boyfriend for the girl, had the fictional boyfriend dump her, and told her the world would be a better place if she killed herself. She did this knowing the girl was being counseled and medicated for depression.
I never claimed that you said she was using a famous person's name. You used that as an example, and I compared what happened to your example.
The law's a stretch, but I'm not a lawyer and the prosecutor is, so I'll allow the lawyers and the judge to decide if it's too big a stretch. I, in my lay reading of the issue, think there's a case to be made, but I wouldn't want to have to make it.
Bullshit. MySpace specifically forbids using the service if you give a fake age. Look it up. It's the first rule in their terms and conditions. It also prohibits use of the site for harassment, inducement to physical harm of any party.
MySpace Terms and Conditions
This woman specifically suggested suicide to a minor. That's not embarrassment. That's inducement.
I don't think "almost anybody" fakes the age, name, and romantic interest in order to harass a minor into suicide. There is specific language in the law being applied, and the acts this woman committed are within those words.
There's no law against tearing the tag off your own mattress. There's a law against tearing the tag off a mattress you're going to sell to a consumer.
People with allergies have a right to know their furniture isn't going to kill them. Once you've been informed by the tag on a mattress you've bought, you can do whatever you like to the tag.