Well, I am not a lawyer, and we are stretching the boundaries of my knowledge here, but...
In this particular case, I am pretty sure the soldiers are off the hook because there were never any underage people involved, just scammy convicted felons. They are liable to see some disciplinary action through their commands for trying to hide it, but probably nothing too severe. And they may get off with nothing at all, it depends on the people in the chain of command above them.
In general, I don't think the intermediary would make someone innocent of the statutory rape/lewd act with a minor/child pornography offense. The whole point of strict liability is "we're not accepting any excuses." That said, I suspect the judge at trial (or jury, if there is one) would see that as mitigating evidence. This might reduce the sentence, or it might get the prosecutor to agree to some other charge with a lighter sentence. It might get the charge plead down to something that doesn't require registration as a sex offender, which would be huge.
Honestly, I'm not sure. I haven't read that many cases about age of consent violations.
That scam is called 'the Badger Game' and is still popular today.
About the criminal intent, this happened in the US. In the United States almost every jurisdiction has 'strict liability' on their age of consent laws. This means that you are strictly liable for any lewd activity with a person below the age of consent, REGARDLESS OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THAT PERSON'S AGE.
This is explicitly done to remove the "I didn't know!" defense. It isn't enough to say "I saw an ID, and she looked old enough, and..."
It doesn't matter. This is why they call mature-looking minors 'jail-bait'.
The "dark web" didn't ban anything. Several markets on the dark web have banned fentanyl sales.
The markets are created and run by individuals or small organizations that facilitate sales (typically by aggregating the sellers together and providing/arranging payment and escrow services). These are basically the eBays of the dark web, like the original Silk Road site and its many successors.
The people running the markets have the absolute power to control what items or services can be bought and sold on their markets. For instance, many markets choose not to allow the sale of fully automatic weapons. Without outside regulation, you can immediately identify what market runners consider to be morally acceptable and what they do not.
Considering the investigative resources applied to the original Silk Road investigation, it is no wonder that the markets are showing some risk aversion.
I suspect that the OP is a programmer trying to build a chatbot/native language spambot and testing its output on Slashdot. A simple/simpleminded fitness function could count the replies garnered by each post. I have noticed a fair number of posts recently that are far outside the 'normal' slashdot weirdness. Interestingly, more recent posts are less incoherent, so maybe it's really working. I don't know what happens when it reaches coherence, though.
Does this apply to the DNC itself too? The RNC? Are they obligated to release their own dirt? How do you claim to enforce that? I don't know what the RNC is hiding, but it seems odd to reverse the burden of proof like that.
What are you talking about? I didn't say anything like that. Someone stole emails that exposed DNC dirt. DNC is suing Russian nationals over it. ShangaiBill made a comment that seemed to blame the DNC for having dirt. THAT'S what I responded to.
Also, the media is doing a fine job of leaking dirt on Trump. Why do they need Russian help again?
Moreover, the main thing the DNC was guilty of was rigging their own primaries. We know the RNC isn't doing that because we got Trump, the weakest candidate.
The media isn't leaking Trump dirt, they're reporting it. But this is all coming out now, after the election, rather than before, which is when the DNC got hit. Completely different thing.
Not at all. I want the dirt on everyone released. The media is already doing a good job on releasing Trump's dirt on their own, I don't think they need Russian help. But the fact that they ignored all the DNC dirt bothers me.
They didn't ignore all the DNC dirt. The media is where I learned that Hillary's campaign management was running the money for the national party, which is how she took the nomination. The media is where I learned about the whitewater bribes and where I learned about her date-rapist husband. The media is where I learned that Obama had an American citizen assassinated overseas. They aren't ignoring DNC scandal. Wake up.
I'm sorry, but these complaints seem hypocritical to me. Showing us how you'll excuse your own side for the sake of power is why we mistrust you, you know. Overreacting to silly memes and wanting to ban free speech just makes you look like tyrants. You can wax poetic about Putin all day, but he's not the one convincing us that you're untrustworthy with power, you're doing a fine job of that yourself with the overreactions.
And here you just went off on some alternate reality. I don't know what the f you're talking about. You keep accusing me of political positions I don't hold.
My post here will undo moderation in this thread, so please believe that I mean this.
I do not normally find myself at odds with you on most issues, but I cannot believe you just wrote that. You can't reasonably force only one party to undergo extreme involuntary transparency and not see that as grossly unfair. I don't mean that as "stomp your feet and cry" unfair, I mean it more like "stuffing ballot boxes" unfair, or "paying cash for votes" unfair. That's not the American way (or, not the American way I learned about when I was a kid).
Couple that with the involvement of an adversarial foreign power.
Treaty-wise, I don't know, but some fact-finder will render a decision and then we'll all know.
Right- and wrong-wise, I think it should be, for two reasons.
First, in a competitive election, it is simply not fair (to the voters) to expose the dirt of one party and not the other. I assume, and I think MOST Americans assume that there is terrible corruption and dirt present in both major parties. If you think that the Republican party is not hiding a bunch of dirt, please explicitly state that, because otherwise it is hypocritical.
Second, if, as seems likely at this point, these hacks were carried out by someone acting on behalf of the Russian government, then every American should be fighting mad. Agents of an adversarial power interfering in our elections? Are you kidding me? That's a violation of our sovereignty. And yes, I know that the US has a bad history of doing this to other countries. They also have every right to be royally pissed off at us for that.
The junkies who stole your stuff are a small subset of users of illicit drugs. There are many other people who would like to steal your stuff that do not use any drugs at all.
Likewise, the shitters and pissers are composed of many different types of people, not all of them druggies, although there is a much larger correlation there, I think.
I think the parent's point is that for a very large number of people, there's no good reason they shouldn't be allowed to use whatever their drug of choice is.
I was a pipelayer for a long time. I blew up one of my knees and lost that career. I knew nothing about disability, so I was kind of foundering.
My mom worked at a state university and talked me into trying college (I was a high-school dropout). I went to school and Vocational Rehabilitation paid for it. Turns out I love college. I graduated Magna Cum Laude. I went on to GSU and got an MBA. I struggled to get a job (a little old for a new degree, and I am not good with people.) I worked some with my douchebag uncle, but he couldn't really pay me. I was broke, like really broke.
My dad was suffering from Alzheimer's disease. He got really bad and I started reaching out to government and nonprofits for help. Nobody really had much to offer except for counseling for me on dealing with emotions about it. Then my dad got hurt and died suddenly. I got either very angry or slightly crazy. I blamed myself and society both for my father's death.
"You won't help my dad because I have no money? Okay, I know where they keep it." So I went and got some. Then six months later, I went and got some more. Then, six months after that, I was trying to stop (I was pretty much sane by then), but I was broke and my mom got sick, so...
Third time's the charm. I was caught coming out of the bank carrying $40,000 of other people's money. I got 130 months in federal prison, earned all of my good time, and have been out since march 2016.
This is a really compressed version, but I think it hits all of the high points.
Underlying cause? Lots of candidates. I've always had a hard time getting jobs (good at keeping them though...) and I'm pretty socially awkward. Obviously, anger management was a problem for me, less so now, I think. I think I felt a lot of impotence about a lot of things in my life all at once, and I couldn't see a way forward. I also kind of felt like life was playing me for a sucker somehow. So, there's me, lashing out. Lucky I didn't get shot. Or hurt someone else.
Um, full disclosure, FWIW. I am a convicted felon.
2x Bank robbery - guilty 1x Armed bank robbery - guilty 1x "924C" Possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence (Armed bank robbery) - guilty 1x Carjacking - maybe 1x "924C" Possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence (Carjacking) - charge dropped in exchange for a plea of guilty on the other four charges**.
*: I'm still not convinced I met the elements of the crime for carjacking. I ordered the bank employee to surrender their keys so I could escape in their car. Same thing in the previous two robberies, cars recovered in less than an hour each time. The carjacking statute requires use of violence with intent to cause injury, which didn't happen. However, charging a second violent crime (carjacking) allowed them to also charge a second 924C.
**: The first 924C conviction carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years. A second conviction requires a mandatory minimum of 25 years. I had 30 years on the table before we even started talking about the robberies and the carjacking. They said they'd drop the second 924C in exchange for an immediate guilty plea on the remaining four charges and I almost broke my fingers reaching for the pen to sign it. I got a little over 10 years and served about 8.5 after good time and halfway house placement.
I had some luck, added some hard work and some intelligence, completed in 2005, Georgia State University MBA concentration in CIS. Thanks for the good wishes, though.
My wife and I tried that game in a temporary arcade in a mall in Tampa in the mid 90s. I loved the immersion but the movement confused me so I didn't get as much out of it as I should have. I saw a lot of potential, but I wasn't surprised when it died.
I have been using the HTC Vive recently. I am amazed by the immersion. I am flying in Ultrawings, mostly. Sometimes in Lucid Trips. I also play Longbow in The Lab by Valve.
I am disappointed to see the field fading. I do believe it will come back again when the hardware is even better. Maybe it will come to stay next time.
I volunteer at my local library and they have a Vive that anyone over 10 years old can just walk up and put on. They have a smallish selection of games and demos.
I often spend afternoons helping people put on the headset and try out the experience. They all agree that it is awesome. They all agree that they love it. Only the kids feel like it is sufficient reason to go to the library all by itself.
Usually it gets less than three hours a day usage. Sometimes less than one.
I agree that the lack of a killer app or AAA titles is hurting.
Rocket fuel is cheap, though. I think a Falcon 9 load of fuel is about $200,000 mostly for the highly refined kerosine. Future engines will use methane which is quite a bit cheaper, since it's much easier to purify. Given that people pay millions just for the satellite hardware, you hit a point of diminishing returns of launch cost reduction.
One of the reasons that the satellites are so expensive is that the launches are so expensive. You cannot risk satellite failure due to cheap manufacture when it costs $60M to get it up there. Thus, everything is deliberately over-built. Companies would use much cheaper satellites if the launch costs were low enough, especially if there was easy deorbit capability.
Also, most satellites are launched in LEO, and a space elevator is only marginally useful for that. You still need a good boost to get to orbital speed.
Yep.
And of course, rockets are more flexible. You can also use the same rocket for polar orbits.
Yep.
You can make a bigger rocket for much lower cost than you can build a bigger space elevator.
Hmm. I'm not sure about that. Once you have a small space elevator, you use it to make your larger one(s). You aren't starting from scratch. But I think you also need to look at why you're building bigger rockets. If you want to go to the moon, the delta V available from a long tether launch makes a better, cheaper launch, and that HAS to be a rocket (it's landing and/or returning, right?). Going to Mars? Who knows, the math is above my head.
Plus you have to add cost for maintenance of the space elevator. You're not just paying for electricity.
Well, yeah. I do believe that the maintenance costs of a tether system will be orders of magnitude lower than rockets with one exception - replacement of the cable. Between ozone, UV, and debris I think you have to be planning on a constant replacement program. This means we're stuck with our ability to make. How much does this shit cost to spin/draw/weave/whatever? So, we'll see.
I am not saying this would be the end of rockets. Not at all. I am saying this would open new doors that would bring tremendous opportunity. Like, change-the-fate-of-the-species kinds of opportunities. So, if someone gets the material science right, I think we will for-sure do it.
Yeah. We will. The terminus satellite itself will serve as the first weight. It doesn't have to be huge. It just has to be enough to start lifting anything. Then we use that small start to get bigger. It's called bootstrapping. Definitely NOT hundreds of flights.
And 35 flights? That's what you're calling as reliable as other forms of transport? Does your car explode every thirty (or 300) times you start it? That is not appropriately compared to other forms of transport. As rockets go, I am 100% behind SpaceX. But extrapolating their current reliability over any time has nothing to do with feasibility and economy of space elevators.
Slashdot Mirror
...and me with no mod points. *sigh*
Well, I am not a lawyer, and we are stretching the boundaries of my knowledge here, but...
In this particular case, I am pretty sure the soldiers are off the hook because there were never any underage people involved, just scammy convicted felons. They are liable to see some disciplinary action through their commands for trying to hide it, but probably nothing too severe. And they may get off with nothing at all, it depends on the people in the chain of command above them.
In general, I don't think the intermediary would make someone innocent of the statutory rape/lewd act with a minor/child pornography offense. The whole point of strict liability is "we're not accepting any excuses." That said, I suspect the judge at trial (or jury, if there is one) would see that as mitigating evidence. This might reduce the sentence, or it might get the prosecutor to agree to some other charge with a lighter sentence. It might get the charge plead down to something that doesn't require registration as a sex offender, which would be huge.
Honestly, I'm not sure. I haven't read that many cases about age of consent violations.
That scam is called 'the Badger Game' and is still popular today.
About the criminal intent, this happened in the US. In the United States almost every jurisdiction has 'strict liability' on their age of consent laws. This means that you are strictly liable for any lewd activity with a person below the age of consent, REGARDLESS OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THAT PERSON'S AGE.
This is explicitly done to remove the "I didn't know!" defense. It isn't enough to say "I saw an ID, and she looked old enough, and..."
It doesn't matter. This is why they call mature-looking minors 'jail-bait'.
The "dark web" didn't ban anything. Several markets on the dark web have banned fentanyl sales.
The markets are created and run by individuals or small organizations that facilitate sales (typically by aggregating the sellers together and providing/arranging payment and escrow services). These are basically the eBays of the dark web, like the original Silk Road site and its many successors.
The people running the markets have the absolute power to control what items or services can be bought and sold on their markets. For instance, many markets choose not to allow the sale of fully automatic weapons. Without outside regulation, you can immediately identify what market runners consider to be morally acceptable and what they do not.
Considering the investigative resources applied to the original Silk Road investigation, it is no wonder that the markets are showing some risk aversion.
Nice!
I suspect that the OP is a programmer trying to build a chatbot/native language spambot and testing its output on Slashdot. A simple/simpleminded fitness function could count the replies garnered by each post. I have noticed a fair number of posts recently that are far outside the 'normal' slashdot weirdness. Interestingly, more recent posts are less incoherent, so maybe it's really working. I don't know what happens when it reaches coherence, though.
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
1. Biology - A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.
So, barring the use of an unusual meaning of the word, breeding compatibility does have a direct bearing on it.
Does this apply to the DNC itself too? The RNC? Are they obligated to release their own dirt? How do you claim to enforce that? I don't know what the RNC is hiding, but it seems odd to reverse the burden of proof like that.
What are you talking about? I didn't say anything like that. Someone stole emails that exposed DNC dirt. DNC is suing Russian nationals over it. ShangaiBill made a comment that seemed to blame the DNC for having dirt. THAT'S what I responded to.
Also, the media is doing a fine job of leaking dirt on Trump. Why do they need Russian help again?
Moreover, the main thing the DNC was guilty of was rigging their own primaries. We know the RNC isn't doing that because we got Trump, the weakest candidate.
The media isn't leaking Trump dirt, they're reporting it. But this is all coming out now, after the election, rather than before, which is when the DNC got hit. Completely different thing.
Not at all. I want the dirt on everyone released. The media is already doing a good job on releasing Trump's dirt on their own, I don't think they need Russian help. But the fact that they ignored all the DNC dirt bothers me.
They didn't ignore all the DNC dirt. The media is where I learned that Hillary's campaign management was running the money for the national party, which is how she took the nomination. The media is where I learned about the whitewater bribes and where I learned about her date-rapist husband. The media is where I learned that Obama had an American citizen assassinated overseas. They aren't ignoring DNC scandal. Wake up.
I'm sorry, but these complaints seem hypocritical to me. Showing us how you'll excuse your own side for the sake of power is why we mistrust you, you know. Overreacting to silly memes and wanting to ban free speech just makes you look like tyrants. You can wax poetic about Putin all day, but he's not the one convincing us that you're untrustworthy with power, you're doing a fine job of that yourself with the overreactions.
And here you just went off on some alternate reality. I don't know what the f you're talking about. You keep accusing me of political positions I don't hold.
and we can talk about it.
But, no. I am talking about when we show the best that is within us, not the worst.
My post here will undo moderation in this thread, so please believe that I mean this.
I do not normally find myself at odds with you on most issues, but I cannot believe you just wrote that. You can't reasonably force only one party to undergo extreme involuntary transparency and not see that as grossly unfair. I don't mean that as "stomp your feet and cry" unfair, I mean it more like "stuffing ballot boxes" unfair, or "paying cash for votes" unfair. That's not the American way (or, not the American way I learned about when I was a kid).
Couple that with the involvement of an adversarial foreign power.
Treaty-wise, I don't know, but some fact-finder will render a decision and then we'll all know.
Right- and wrong-wise, I think it should be, for two reasons.
First, in a competitive election, it is simply not fair (to the voters) to expose the dirt of one party and not the other. I assume, and I think MOST Americans assume that there is terrible corruption and dirt present in both major parties. If you think that the Republican party is not hiding a bunch of dirt, please explicitly state that, because otherwise it is hypocritical.
Second, if, as seems likely at this point, these hacks were carried out by someone acting on behalf of the Russian government, then every American should be fighting mad. Agents of an adversarial power interfering in our elections? Are you kidding me? That's a violation of our sovereignty. And yes, I know that the US has a bad history of doing this to other countries. They also have every right to be royally pissed off at us for that.
The junkies who stole your stuff are a small subset of users of illicit drugs. There are many other people who would like to steal your stuff that do not use any drugs at all.
Likewise, the shitters and pissers are composed of many different types of people, not all of them druggies, although there is a much larger correlation there, I think.
I think the parent's point is that for a very large number of people, there's no good reason they shouldn't be allowed to use whatever their drug of choice is.
Always loved computers and technology. Better with machines than people. My BBA concentration was MIS and my MBA concentration was CIS.
Funny that the MBA seems to belong less than the bank robber...
I was a pipelayer for a long time. I blew up one of my knees and lost that career. I knew nothing about disability, so I was kind of foundering.
My mom worked at a state university and talked me into trying college (I was a high-school dropout). I went to school and Vocational Rehabilitation paid for it. Turns out I love college. I graduated Magna Cum Laude. I went on to GSU and got an MBA. I struggled to get a job (a little old for a new degree, and I am not good with people.) I worked some with my douchebag uncle, but he couldn't really pay me. I was broke, like really broke.
My dad was suffering from Alzheimer's disease. He got really bad and I started reaching out to government and nonprofits for help. Nobody really had much to offer except for counseling for me on dealing with emotions about it. Then my dad got hurt and died suddenly. I got either very angry or slightly crazy. I blamed myself and society both for my father's death.
"You won't help my dad because I have no money? Okay, I know where they keep it." So I went and got some. Then six months later, I went and got some more. Then, six months after that, I was trying to stop (I was pretty much sane by then), but I was broke and my mom got sick, so...
Third time's the charm. I was caught coming out of the bank carrying $40,000 of other people's money. I got 130 months in federal prison, earned all of my good time, and have been out since march 2016.
This is a really compressed version, but I think it hits all of the high points.
Underlying cause? Lots of candidates. I've always had a hard time getting jobs (good at keeping them though...) and I'm pretty socially awkward. Obviously, anger management was a problem for me, less so now, I think. I think I felt a lot of impotence about a lot of things in my life all at once, and I couldn't see a way forward. I also kind of felt like life was playing me for a sucker somehow. So, there's me, lashing out. Lucky I didn't get shot. Or hurt someone else.
Yep. That's pretty much how it works.
Lol, no. Milky white and extremely sweet!
Um, full disclosure, FWIW. I am a convicted felon.
2x Bank robbery - guilty
1x Armed bank robbery - guilty
1x "924C" Possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence (Armed bank robbery) - guilty
1x Carjacking - maybe
1x "924C" Possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence (Carjacking) - charge dropped in exchange for a plea of guilty on the other four charges**.
*: I'm still not convinced I met the elements of the crime for carjacking. I ordered the bank employee to surrender their keys so I could escape in their car. Same thing in the previous two robberies, cars recovered in less than an hour each time. The carjacking statute requires use of violence with intent to cause injury, which didn't happen. However, charging a second violent crime (carjacking) allowed them to also charge a second 924C.
**: The first 924C conviction carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years. A second conviction requires a mandatory minimum of 25 years. I had 30 years on the table before we even started talking about the robberies and the carjacking. They said they'd drop the second 924C in exchange for an immediate guilty plea on the remaining four charges and I almost broke my fingers reaching for the pen to sign it. I got a little over 10 years and served about 8.5 after good time and halfway house placement.
In the Feds they sell instant coffee, nondairy creamer, and artificial sweetener on the Commissary.
I had some luck, added some hard work and some intelligence, completed in 2005, Georgia State University MBA concentration in CIS. Thanks for the good wishes, though.
My wife and I tried that game in a temporary arcade in a mall in Tampa in the mid 90s. I loved the immersion but the movement confused me so I didn't get as much out of it as I should have. I saw a lot of potential, but I wasn't surprised when it died.
I have been using the HTC Vive recently. I am amazed by the immersion. I am flying in Ultrawings, mostly. Sometimes in Lucid Trips. I also play Longbow in The Lab by Valve.
I am disappointed to see the field fading. I do believe it will come back again when the hardware is even better. Maybe it will come to stay next time.
Yeah, that's why that last post started with "if".
I volunteer at my local library and they have a Vive that anyone over 10 years old can just walk up and put on. They have a smallish selection of games and demos.
I often spend afternoons helping people put on the headset and try out the experience. They all agree that it is awesome. They all agree that they love it. Only the kids feel like it is sufficient reason to go to the library all by itself.
Usually it gets less than three hours a day usage. Sometimes less than one.
I agree that the lack of a killer app or AAA titles is hurting.
Ok
Rocket fuel is cheap, though. I think a Falcon 9 load of fuel is about $200,000 mostly for the highly refined kerosine. Future engines will use methane which is quite a bit cheaper, since it's much easier to purify. Given that people pay millions just for the satellite hardware, you hit a point of diminishing returns of launch cost reduction.
One of the reasons that the satellites are so expensive is that the launches are so expensive. You cannot risk satellite failure due to cheap manufacture when it costs $60M to get it up there. Thus, everything is deliberately over-built. Companies would use much cheaper satellites if the launch costs were low enough, especially if there was easy deorbit capability.
Also, most satellites are launched in LEO, and a space elevator is only marginally useful for that. You still need a good boost to get to orbital speed.
Yep.
And of course, rockets are more flexible. You can also use the same rocket for polar orbits.
Yep.
You can make a bigger rocket for much lower cost than you can build a bigger space elevator.
Hmm. I'm not sure about that. Once you have a small space elevator, you use it to make your larger one(s). You aren't starting from scratch. But I think you also need to look at why you're building bigger rockets. If you want to go to the moon, the delta V available from a long tether launch makes a better, cheaper launch, and that HAS to be a rocket (it's landing and/or returning, right?). Going to Mars? Who knows, the math is above my head.
Plus you have to add cost for maintenance of the space elevator. You're not just paying for electricity.
Well, yeah. I do believe that the maintenance costs of a tether system will be orders of magnitude lower than rockets with one exception - replacement of the cable. Between ozone, UV, and debris I think you have to be planning on a constant replacement program. This means we're stuck with our ability to make. How much does this shit cost to spin/draw/weave/whatever? So, we'll see.
I am not saying this would be the end of rockets. Not at all. I am saying this would open new doors that would bring tremendous opportunity. Like, change-the-fate-of-the-species kinds of opportunities. So, if someone gets the material science right, I think we will for-sure do it.
We'll send a starter weight up by rocket.
No, no we won't.
Yeah. We will. The terminus satellite itself will serve as the first weight. It doesn't have to be huge. It just has to be enough to start lifting anything. Then we use that small start to get bigger. It's called bootstrapping. Definitely NOT hundreds of flights.
And 35 flights? That's what you're calling as reliable as other forms of transport? Does your car explode every thirty (or 300) times you start it? That is not appropriately compared to other forms of transport. As rockets go, I am 100% behind SpaceX. But extrapolating their current reliability over any time has nothing to do with feasibility and economy of space elevators.