If there is enough evidence to convince a judge to "sign off" on keeping the (un)accused locked up, surely there must be enough evidence to charge him with some offence
Not a lawyer, huh? Well, ask yourself this: why isn't the same level of evidence sufficient to convict him? Why do we need a trial at all? The answer is that at different stages in the process, as your liberty gets put into deeper and deeper jeopardy, the level of proof needed rises. What's needed to detain you is less than what is needed to charge you is less than what is needed to convict you.
I have no clue what point you think you're making. Mine is that a month is long enough to work out if a crime has been committed, while the (un)accused's liberty has already been taken away. He is receiving pretty much the same treatment as if he'd been convicted, when he hasn't even been charged, let alone tried.
Four weeks locked up with no charge already seems a brutal denial of justice to me.
This is a total lack of perspective. Join Amnesty International sometime and writer letters for prisoners of conscience, as I did for many years, to learn what a brutal denial of justice really means.
Again, what is your point? We shouldn't worry about anything while we're not as bad as North Korea? Sorry, I have a different standard. Sorry if that's not macho enough for you.
Husband your outrage. You may really need it someday
No, I think this is the right time to be outraged. BEFORE it gets even worse. If you sit back till then, it will be to late. Every step the wrong way should be resisted. And though I'm sure you will sneer at this as "Chicken Littlism":
When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out. -- Martin Niemoller
But remember, despite people bitching about the US' policies, we still have among the world's most stringent policies regarding the rights of the accused.
Where have you been for the last seven years?
Guantanamo... rendition... military tribunals... waterboarding...
While they, obviously, abhorred the idea of someone being put to the death they saw nothing wrong with imprisoning someone without charges for 30 days.
Mirat Kurnaz "was held in extrajudicial detention and claims to have been tortured at the U.S. military base in Kandahar, Afghanistan and in the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba for four years."
The Shame of Guantanamo
"... So who is being held at this camp, where detainees have no real hope of release, or of being formally charged, or even of seeing what evidence there may be against them?... The government produced documents on 517 Guantanamo detainees....More than half the so-called `enemy combatants' at Guantanamo were determined to have committed no hostile act against U.S. or coalition forces."
as a general rule, the 28-day limit stays in effect, but in certain unusual circumstances -- e.g. something like the London bombing, evidence that some major operation has taken place, or is about to take place -- then the government can raise the 28-day limit to 42 days temporarily. Even if the limit is raised, a judge needs to sign off
If there is enough evidence to convince a judge to "sign off" on keeping the (un)accused locked up, surely there must be enough evidence to charge him with some offence. Four weeks locked up with no charge already seems a brutal denial of justice to me.
Absolutely. At the risk of incurring a "think of the children!" response, I'm going to use child porn as an example. By allowing distribution of child porn, you would be creating a market for it. People may discover their interest in it by viewing material that they wouldn't otherwise have been able to do, and that would in turn increase demand for the materials.
Is it a market if the distribution is free, as in this case? And as for the rest, it's thought crime, entirely conjectural "may discover", etc., are what you imagine might be consequences. Exactly the same argument would lead to banning almost all news reporting.
A while ago I picked up American Psycho and read a few chapters. It turned my stomach (it's full of extreme sexual violence, in case you haven't heard of it). But while I wouldn't want my 10-year-old daughter to read it, I wouldn't want it prevented from being distributed. And despite reading about it, personally, I haven't felt the urge to cut off womens' heads and use them as masturbation toys. I really doubt you can suddenly have perverse urges switched on by being exposed to depictions of it. We'd all be in very deep shit if that were the case. By all means, punish the people who actually DO these things. The rest is just expressing your disapproval without helping anyone, the children least of all.
However - why shouldn't he get a little PR for supplying Slashdot with stories?
Every submitter gets one link, on his name. He pimps his site with the bogus "for more information" one he puts at the end (in this case the slashdot editors have, unusually, added the original link, if you compare with the firehose version.
Anyway, it's a bit like RealNetworks, there is a lot of residual mistrust after seeing how they exploited their access, and a feeling not to trust them an inch again.
After all, we'd be moaning in hours if there weren't any stories posted.
Look at the firehose. There is no shortage of stories.
I don't see any problem with Roland's postings. Do you not like him because he is French, or some other banal reason?
I don't like him becasue he plagiarises stories from other sites, copies them to his blog, then submits to Slashdot. He's just trying, and succeeding, in pumping up his pagerank. Originally he used to ONLY link to his blog. There were many complaints about that, eventually he started also giving the original link, but he always adds his blog link as well. He's a parasite.
If you had bother to read the story you would have found that the ISPs are purging some news groups that actually did have kiddieporn on them. Several Usenet groups are very questionable at best.
And what is the point? There are 50,000 or more newsgroups. Those who want to use usenet to distribute "questionable" content will just create a new group (which anyone can do easily). Or hijack a currently innocuous one and start posting their stuff there. I've seen that happen. Or subscribe (for about $10/month) to an "unlimited access" usenet provider and bypass the local censorship.
As for "purging groups with kiddie porn", that gives people with a grudge against a group an excellent way to get any group shut down. Lots of forums are plagued by assholes who keep posting kiddie porn in them, then reporting them to ISPs or hosting companies to get them banned.
Trying to stop kiddie porn from being given away (which is what Usenet is) is hopeless and pointless. What is needed is to find and prosecute the criminals who produce it, the ones who are abusing living children, not the (literal) wankers who download images. It's a distraction, a way to pretend they're doing something that won't help one single child.
I'm under the impression that human waste can be used, but it needs to be treated rather carefully, as people swallow all sorts of things that you probably don't want in your food, and put even more nasty stuff down the magic hole in the bathroom.
Human shit is pretty unpleasant, but no more dangerous than any other. And if you're talking about drugs and such, I really doubt many would survive passing through the food chain. While those we piss out can enter the water supply in measurable (though minuscule) quantities.
There are a few vegetable farms nearby, in Hong Kong, where the farmers slop out buckets of shit on their fields. A lot of them are over 70 years old (the youngsters all have office jobs). The circle of life includes shit.
And if you look at the other articles it links to, you see it publishes any and every link that supports the climate change deniers (sorry, "sceptics").
This guy has an agenda. Don't believe me, see the stories on his front page:
Surprise: Earths Biosphere is Booming, Satellite Data Suggests CO2 the Cause
JunkScience.com back up and running (well-known denialist site)
Some Planetary Perspective
(critical of NASA)
Jason-2 satellite set to launch June 15th from Vandenberg, will track sea level (neutral, though hinting that sea level data to date is bogus)
The Hockey Stick returns as web karma (sneers at realclimate.org)
RSS: Global Temperature Also Cooler in May NOAA reports on our cooler than normal spring (It's really getting colder)
No More Singing Around the Campfire: Too Much C02 (they won't let us have campfires)
Brian Sussman: Global Whining vs. the Truth (It's all a media conspiracy)
In every one of Roland Piquepaille's submissions he links to his own blog at the nd "Further information...". This of course is just stuff he's plagiarised from the original sites. Slashdot encourages this thief and rewards him by linking him on the front page, elevating his pagerank.
While his quote is different than what people boil it down to (nobody will ever need more than 640k, or whatever), it meant the same thing.
No, it certainly is not "the same thing". The statement you quote is full of qualifications. It is not at all like the foolish absolute statemement misquoted. Same way people (like you, apparently) misquote Gore to make him look like a jerk.
And I can't believe I'm defending that asshole Gates. He's earned a lot of criticism, but not for this.
Great. Point me to an article where the perpetrator says he didn't say it. Nice.
How is he supposed to prove he did not say something anyway?
Gates painted a big fat target on himself by denying it. Lots of people would love to embarrass him by proving he had said it, and later lied about it. Yet no one has ever provided a citation.
I once Googled around for an hour trying to find a source. It seemed to suddenly appear on
usenet in 1992, in an OS/2 newsgroup, in the form: "640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981. The "1981" made for some versmilitude, but omits any details you could actually check.
"No. Bill Gates did not say that."
If you said something so totally retarded, wouldn't you deny it too?
And if I was a famous person, someone would delight in finding proof that I had. No one ever has. When you can provide a citation -- eg, date and issue of magazine article, or even some someone credible on record saying they heard Gates say this, it's just an urban myth (aka "lie").
But that completely ignores the initial investment to make the movie. This model would not work at all for the straight-to-DVD movie market. Not all movies hit the "big screen".
And those kind of movies don't ever sell for a premium. They often end up in the bargain bin from day 1. And movies PLANNED to be DTD are made on a shoestring budget. And finally, they're almsot always crap. They might provide employment for a few technicans and D-List actors, but otherwise, who would care if they never got made?
If everyone employed that tactic, the companies producing them won't make enough money off them, meaning they won't be around for the price to come down.
Yes they will. Once the movie has been made, the marginal cost of the DVD is less than $1, depending on how elaborate the packaging is. The rest is markup, marketing, and what the market will bear.
Here in Australia they're selling once-mainstream DVDs for $6-$8 all over the place. If shoppers would just exhibit a little patience...
Every few weeks I visit a local flea market. Spend 20 minutes rummaging through the used DVD stalls. Usually I get a dozen or so discs that look interesting. Cost about 50 cents each. Maybe 10-20% turn out to be scratched, unreadable or bootleg cams, the rest are enough to keep me amused. The random nature of what's available keeps it interesting. (If I bought porn, that's even cheaper; there's a glut of that. Fortunately they keep them in a separate pile.)
Anyone can go to Kinkos and send a fax pretending it's from me.
And it will have "KINKO" in the sending fax number ID.
Of course, it's also possible to spoof caller ID. But it's still more secure than email. Too bad businesses hardly ever use PGP signed email and would rather spend a small fortune on courier fees for dead tree delivery.
So, need I actually abide by laws of other countries if my Website is hosted in the USA and I am a citizen of the USA living in the USA? If so, which countries? What happens if I don't and just ignore their BMCing.
Nothing will happen to you. Unless, like Facebook, you have 7 million members in Canada, take advertising money from Canadian customers and thus have millions of dollars in cashflow passing through Canadian banks, then you might have to take notice if you break laws relating to how you use the information you get from these Canadians.
You said "natural" Now you're talking "staples". regardl;ess, Pringles and such are unhealthy junk food. Sugar is a "natural staple". Eat a few pounds of that a week and see how healthy you are.
Also, casual smoking of straight tobacco (for example, not a commercial cigarette) would most likely do you no harm.
My mother rolled her own cigarettes. She died of lung cancer. But that's just an anecdote, feel free to ignore it.
Slashdot Mirror
You bring the evidence to a court and let a judge and jury decide, not leave it up to a bureaucrat who doesn't even have to state what the crime is.
Not a lawyer, huh? Well, ask yourself this: why isn't the same level of evidence sufficient to convict him? Why do we need a trial at all? The answer is that at different stages in the process, as your liberty gets put into deeper and deeper jeopardy, the level of proof needed rises. What's needed to detain you is less than what is needed to charge you is less than what is needed to convict you.
I have no clue what point you think you're making. Mine is that a month is long enough to work out if a crime has been committed, while the (un)accused's liberty has already been taken away. He is receiving pretty much the same treatment as if he'd been convicted, when he hasn't even been charged, let alone tried.
Four weeks locked up with no charge already seems a brutal denial of justice to me.
This is a total lack of perspective. Join Amnesty International sometime and writer letters for prisoners of conscience, as I did for many years, to learn what a brutal denial of justice really means.
Again, what is your point? We shouldn't worry about anything while we're not as bad as North Korea? Sorry, I have a different standard. Sorry if that's not macho enough for you.
Husband your outrage. You may really need it someday
No, I think this is the right time to be outraged. BEFORE it gets even worse. If you sit back till then, it will be to late. Every step the wrong way should be resisted. And though I'm sure you will sneer at this as "Chicken Littlism":
Where have you been for the last seven years?
Guantanamo... rendition... military tribunals ... waterboarding...
While they, obviously, abhorred the idea of someone being put to the death they saw nothing wrong with imprisoning someone without charges for 30 days.
Mirat Kurnaz "was held in extrajudicial detention and claims to have been tortured at the U.S. military base in Kandahar, Afghanistan and in the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba for four years."
The Shame of Guantanamo
"... So who is being held at this camp, where detainees have no real hope of release, or of being formally charged, or even of seeing what evidence there may be against them?... The government produced documents on 517 Guantanamo detainees....More than half the so-called `enemy combatants' at Guantanamo were determined to have committed no hostile act against U.S. or coalition forces."
If there is enough evidence to convince a judge to "sign off" on keeping the (un)accused locked up, surely there must be enough evidence to charge him with some offence. Four weeks locked up with no charge already seems a brutal denial of justice to me.
Is it a market if the distribution is free, as in this case? And as for the rest, it's thought crime, entirely conjectural "may discover", etc., are what you imagine might be consequences. Exactly the same argument would lead to banning almost all news reporting.
A while ago I picked up American Psycho and read a few chapters. It turned my stomach (it's full of extreme sexual violence, in case you haven't heard of it). But while I wouldn't want my 10-year-old daughter to read it, I wouldn't want it prevented from being distributed. And despite reading about it, personally, I haven't felt the urge to cut off womens' heads and use them as masturbation toys. I really doubt you can suddenly have perverse urges switched on by being exposed to depictions of it. We'd all be in very deep shit if that were the case. By all means, punish the people who actually DO these things. The rest is just expressing your disapproval without helping anyone, the children least of all.
Every submitter gets one link, on his name. He pimps his site with the bogus "for more information" one he puts at the end (in this case the slashdot editors have, unusually, added the original link, if you compare with the firehose version.
Anyway, it's a bit like RealNetworks, there is a lot of residual mistrust after seeing how they exploited their access, and a feeling not to trust them an inch again.
After all, we'd be moaning in hours if there weren't any stories posted.
Look at the firehose. There is no shortage of stories.
I don't like him becasue he plagiarises stories from other sites, copies them to his blog, then submits to Slashdot. He's just trying, and succeeding, in pumping up his pagerank. Originally he used to ONLY link to his blog. There were many complaints about that, eventually he started also giving the original link, but he always adds his blog link as well. He's a parasite.
And what is the point? There are 50,000 or more newsgroups. Those who want to use usenet to distribute "questionable" content will just create a new group (which anyone can do easily). Or hijack a currently innocuous one and start posting their stuff there. I've seen that happen. Or subscribe (for about $10/month) to an "unlimited access" usenet provider and bypass the local censorship.
As for "purging groups with kiddie porn", that gives people with a grudge against a group an excellent way to get any group shut down. Lots of forums are plagued by assholes who keep posting kiddie porn in them, then reporting them to ISPs or hosting companies to get them banned.
Trying to stop kiddie porn from being given away (which is what Usenet is) is hopeless and pointless. What is needed is to find and prosecute the criminals who produce it, the ones who are abusing living children, not the (literal) wankers who download images. It's a distraction, a way to pretend they're doing something that won't help one single child.
Human shit is pretty unpleasant, but no more dangerous than any other. And if you're talking about drugs and such, I really doubt many would survive passing through the food chain. While those we piss out can enter the water supply in measurable (though minuscule) quantities.
There are a few vegetable farms nearby, in Hong Kong, where the farmers slop out buckets of shit on their fields. A lot of them are over 70 years old (the youngsters all have office jobs). The circle of life includes shit.
Its a blog.
And if you look at the other articles it links to, you see it publishes any and every link that supports the climate change deniers (sorry, "sceptics").
This guy has an agenda. Don't believe me, see the stories on his front page:
Surprise: Earths Biosphere is Booming, Satellite Data Suggests CO2 the Cause
JunkScience.com back up and running
(well-known denialist site)
Some Planetary Perspective
(critical of NASA)
Jason-2 satellite set to launch June 15th from Vandenberg, will track sea level
(neutral, though hinting that sea level data to date is bogus)
The Hockey Stick returns as web karma
(sneers at realclimate.org)
RSS: Global Temperature Also Cooler in May
NOAA reports on our cooler than normal spring
(It's really getting colder)
No More Singing Around the Campfire: Too Much C02
(they won't let us have campfires)
Brian Sussman: Global Whining vs. the Truth
(It's all a media conspiracy)
In every one of Roland Piquepaille's submissions he links to his own blog at the nd "Further information...". This of course is just stuff he's plagiarised from the original sites. Slashdot encourages this thief and rewards him by linking him on the front page, elevating his pagerank.
No, it certainly is not "the same thing". The statement you quote is full of qualifications. It is not at all like the foolish absolute statemement misquoted. Same way people (like you, apparently) misquote Gore to make him look like a jerk.
And I can't believe I'm defending that asshole Gates. He's earned a lot of criticism, but not for this.
No you didn't. If this had ever been printed in any form, someone would have cited it in a more definite form than "I seem to remember".
How is he supposed to prove he did not say something anyway?
Gates painted a big fat target on himself by denying it. Lots of people would love to embarrass him by proving he had said it, and later lied about it. Yet no one has ever provided a citation.
I once Googled around for an hour trying to find a source. It seemed to suddenly appear on usenet in 1992, in an OS/2 newsgroup, in the form: "640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981. The "1981" made for some versmilitude, but omits any details you could actually check.
If you said something so totally retarded, wouldn't you deny it too?
And if I was a famous person, someone would delight in finding proof that I had. No one ever has. When you can provide a citation -- eg, date and issue of magazine article, or even some someone credible on record saying they heard Gates say this, it's just an urban myth (aka "lie").
And those kind of movies don't ever sell for a premium. They often end up in the bargain bin from day 1. And movies PLANNED to be DTD are made on a shoestring budget. And finally, they're almsot always crap. They might provide employment for a few technicans and D-List actors, but otherwise, who would care if they never got made?
TFA mentions they've been on sale for the last 5 years. Send me the $10.
Yes they will. Once the movie has been made, the marginal cost of the DVD is less than $1, depending on how elaborate the packaging is. The rest is markup, marketing, and what the market will bear.
Every few weeks I visit a local flea market. Spend 20 minutes rummaging through the used DVD stalls. Usually I get a dozen or so discs that look interesting. Cost about 50 cents each. Maybe 10-20% turn out to be scratched, unreadable or bootleg cams, the rest are enough to keep me amused. The random nature of what's available keeps it interesting. (If I bought porn, that's even cheaper; there's a glut of that. Fortunately they keep them in a separate pile.)
And it will have "KINKO" in the sending fax number ID.
Of course, it's also possible to spoof caller ID. But it's still more secure than email. Too bad businesses hardly ever use PGP signed email and would rather spend a small fortune on courier fees for dead tree delivery.
Nothing will happen to you. Unless, like Facebook, you have 7 million members in Canada, take advertising money from Canadian customers and thus have millions of dollars in cashflow passing through Canadian banks, then you might have to take notice if you break laws relating to how you use the information you get from these Canadians.
You said "natural" Now you're talking "staples". regardl;ess, Pringles and such are unhealthy junk food. Sugar is a "natural staple". Eat a few pounds of that a week and see how healthy you are.
Also, casual smoking of straight tobacco (for example, not a commercial cigarette) would most likely do you no harm.
My mother rolled her own cigarettes. She died of lung cancer. But that's just an anecdote, feel free to ignore it.
Really? You did a survey? Or are you just assuming Europeans are clueless about this?
Yes, death to natural ingredients.
Yep. Smoke some natural tobacco, while you're at it. Natural must be healthy, right?
Impeding isn't "blocking". You could try a dictionary:
impede To retard or obstruct the progress of.
(The American Heritage® Dictionary).
However, you can prioritize highly interactive traffic (IM, HTTP, SSH) over bulk data like FTP or P2P transfers.
And then, as I said, very quickly P2P apps will start to mimic or run over "highly interactive traffic" so as not to be slowed down.