OF COURSE sleep mode isnt off, otherwise THE PHONE WOULD NOT ANSWER CALLS!
There is a difference between 'sleeping, but able to receive calls' and 'sleeping, and connecting automatically while roaming to download email and run up your bill'.
How is it possible, in this modern world, that people don't understand the basics of how a cell phone works?
That's the point- a normal cell phone does not download email (or, indeed, do much of anything) when 'off' (okay, "in sleep mode"). Yes, it receives calls. Yes, it notifies the closest cell tower it is within range, so as to be able to receive calls. The iPhone goes WAY beyond that and decides to connect (while roaming, no less!) and download email.
you have two particles that are both in both possible states at the same time.
Um, I don't get that.
I also don't get Schrodengers Cat, either. The cat is alive OR it is dead. Not 'both', not 'neither'. It is one or the other. It's only our knowledge which is indeterminate, up to the point we open the box and determine what the cat is.
And the same goes for quantum entanglement. Since the particles are entangled, one is 'red', the other 'blue'. (otherwise, they would not be engangled.) We just don't know which one is which. But they are one or the other.
It may be a big blow to some people, but our lack of knowledge about something does not magically make it indeterminate. We're just not that important.:-)
Sorry, wrong answer. It has been clearly held that, even for cops (which Circuit City employees are not even close to), the refusal to authorize a search is NOT reasonable cause to force a search.
pick 100 guys off the street and a majority of them will...elect Georce Bush?
This does not follow. The other reply addressed why.
It does most certainly follow. If there is no crime, there can be no evidence of a crime. "Circumstancial" evidence is just that- "evidence" of a crime that consists of the circumstances about the crime and criminal.
If there is a theft, and you are seen in the area, that is circumstancial evidence. if there is NO theft, and you are seen somewhere, that is NOT evidence of any kind.
It's also clearly stated store policy.
It's my 'clearly stated policy' that, by responding to this post, you owe me $100. Pay up.
Oh, you don't agree to that policy, and won't pay? Well, I didn't agree to the store's policy, and won't let them search me.
For one, they would be enacting vigilante justice
You don't consider it "vigilante justice" to chase someone out into a parking lot and block their car from driving away?
They could contact the police
Why didn't Circuit City contact the police, if they really thought he was a shoplifter?
but then they would have to demonstrate not only probable cause that I stole it,
CC didn't demonstrate ANY cause that the guy in question stole anything.
once the supposed thief leaves the establishment, any special allowances vanish.
The guy was out in the parking lot, well outside the store.
I don't know the legalese, but I would assume that "reasonable suspicion" is defined something like 'evidence that would produce suspicion in a reasonable person'. Leaving aside the huge loophole of how 'reasonable' is defined, let's look at the rest. For it to be 'reasonable suspicion', they would need evidence that would lead them to think he shoplifted. Since he did, in fact, NOT shoplift, there can, by definition, be no evidence that he did shoplift. (You cannot have evidence of a crime that was not comitted.) Therefore, they had NO evidence. No evidence means no 'reasonable suspicion'.
Put in simpler terms: he did not shoplift, therefore they had no evidence that he shopifted, therefore they could not be 'reasonably suspicious' of him.
Until you show a receipt, the status of your merchandise (purchased or non-purchased) is unknown.
Well, considering I just walked 20 feet in a straight line from the CASH REGISTER to the door, I think that's a pretty good indication the items in my bag fall under the catagory of 'purchased'.
So, um, do you have a receipt for EVERY single item in your house? If not, but your own logic, a the store you bought you, oh, letts say 'Microwave'- the store you bought your microwave could bust in your door and take it back because you don't have a receipt for it.
They have a right to detain you if there is reasonable suspicion that you've shoplifted. Unwillingness to produce a receipt could be argued to constitute reasonable suspicion.
Um, No.
The link You provided says
...that reads "If they see you concealing something, you are in trouble." You'll note however that it says "unpurchased merchandise." If you've purchased the merchandise, it's likely that you're not covered under New Jersey's definition of probable cause for shoplifting.
If they see you concealing merchandise does in no way equal "Unwillingness to produce a receipt".
Lock picking is NOT that complicated. Basically, just apply a rotation to the cylinder, while pushing each pin up until you find the one that binds. (Locks are not perfect, one pin will usually bind before the others.) Push that pin up until the shearline is at the right point, and the cylinder will rotate slightly, keeping that pin in place. Repeat to find the next pin that binds.
Now, there are some types of locks that make it harder to do this. (Through various means I won't get into here.) But ANY lock can be 'picked', even if just by bruteforcing it.
There are some acronyms that have become so well-used that they are, for all intents and purposes, words themselves. Thus, there is no 'duplication' of wording when saying (for instance):
ATM Machine SCUBA Gear (The 'A' stands for "Apparatus") PIN number VIN number etc.
the support guy made it clear that to them, "Internet Service" covers web browsing and email. End of story. Nothing else was supported, and by supported they meant permitted.
It's not what 'the tech support guy' says, it's what their TOS says. And I've NEVER seen a TOS that says 'browsing and email ONLY'.
As a matter of fact, RCN's own page, mentioning the features of one of their connections says:
Online gaming with RCN interACTION Games*
View streaming video clips
Download and burn music with RCN interACTION Music*
Trade photos online with family
Basic web surfing
Instant messaging
Research for home, school, work
Emailing friends
Participating in newsgroups
That's a little bit more than "browsing and email".
Optimum Online: Users may not run any type of server on the system. This includes but is not limited to FTP, IRC, SMTP, POP, HTTP, SOCKS, SQUID, DNS or any multi-user forums;
So, the definition of server DOES include FTP servers (at least for optimum online). But that phrase "includes but is not limited to..." means that ANYTHING could be called a server. They simply DO NOT DEFINE what they mean by 'server'. It's a catch-all thing that a lot of contracts have- a vague definition that means they can up and do anything they want. That WOW patcher? It's a Bittorrent client, and a server. We're cutting your internet off!
Yeah, except the contract... likely specifies that the customer isn't allowed to host servers
Define 'server'.
If I telnet (I know) into my home PC from work, am I "running a telnet server"??
Technically, YES. But I sincerely doubt the tiny amount of traffic on the few occassions I connect will bankrupt my IPS.
If I FTP into my home PC from work, am I "running a FTP server"??
Same as above. As long as it is for personal use (IE: I'm not running a PUBLIC FTP site, it should be allowed.
If I connect to WOW, and download a patch using their downloader (which, due to the way it is made, also automatically uploads the bits of the file I already have to other people), am I "running a Bittorrent server"??
How about if I constantly DL from Bittorent 24/7?... at 5kb/s? 50kb/s? 500kb/s?
Does it matter WHAT I DL? What if I DL only overnight or duing working hours (when usage is low anyway?) What if I DL ONE CD (linux distro) during the busyist time of day, but then nothing for a week??
Things like that matter when determining how much 'strain' is put on the network. But ISPs ignore all that and make it against their rules to even telnet into your PC over the connection you pay for.
That would just encourage people to share or re-sell connections.
I buy a connection, assuming it's going to be maxxed out at 2000GB/month. I pay $600. I then provide my 4 neighbors a 500GB connection, for a rate of $400 each. (Note, this is a 20% discount off them buying direct from the ISP at $500!). I make $2000, I pay $600. Profit!
Wouldn't it be simpler for the telcos to charge per GB delivered in addition to the size of the pipe?
WOuldn't it be simplest for the ISPs to not offer "unlimited" service when they obviously have limits?
Give all your customers your fastest residential speed. Set your rate so 90% of your customers don't exceed the "monthly allowance" for your low-end rate plan.
And, after the top 10 percent are limited by this, re-calculate. Repeat each month until everyone is at dial-up speeds! (and paying for broadband!)
"Put your hand on top of your monitor. Feel that warmth? All electronic equipment creates heat. Too much heat fries electronics. I can "make it work" for the $$$ I mentioned, or we can keep spending $$$$ to replace fried equipment."
Cost of replacing switches 3 times: $$$$ COst of lost time when phones go down: $$ cost of lost time while IT replaces switch instead of doing their real job: $$$
Cost of cutting a hole in the closet door and mounting a fan: $$
Savings that could conceivably go to the managers bonus: $$$$
One of my pet peeves is in the first Die Hard movie-- people hanging from things by their fingertips.
You've never seen Ninja Warrior (Known in Japan as 'Sasuke').
Cliff Hanger Competitors must traverse three narrow ledges sideways from which they must hang by their fingertips. Each ledge is 1.2 meters (3.9 ft) long, and the gaps between the ledges are both 50 centimeters (20 in) wide, horizontally. There are four configurations. The original featured three ledges at the same height with gaps between them. In the second configuration, the third ledge was positioned 30 centimeters (1 ft) higher than the others. In the third configuration, the second ledge is positioned 30 centimeters higher than the first ledge, and the third ledge is positioned 45 centimeters (1.5 ft) lower than the second ledge. In the fourth configuration, introduced in the 18th competition, the second ledge was shortened and inclined upwards, and the third ledge starts wider than normal, as competitors may have to leap across the second gap, but it narrows back to the previous width as it progresses.
Registered mail, someone has to SIGN for and accept. Then they have no wiggle-room...the other party is holding on to a piece of paper with your (or your representative's) signature.
So what? "Bob" in the mail room signed for it. What's that prove? The CEO can still claim he never got it.
Parking citations are registered to the owner of the car. They are left on the vehicle and are supposed to be paid by the offending party. If the offending party does not pay them, the owner will be subpoenaed.
Red Light Camera tickets are sent to the owner of the car. They are not 'left on the car' to be paid by the offending party, but are mailed to the owner, the only piece of identification the cops have (based on the license plate in the photo). If the owner does not want to pay it, the owner can ID the offending party.
See? Quite similar. The only differences are because the Parking ticket is physically left on the car, while the Red light ticket cannot be, so they have to send it somewhere. The logical place is the owner of the car.
If I run a light or speed and am pulled over by a real live cop, do you think he will issue the citation in the name of the owner of the car?
A camera is not "a real live cop". Different situation, diferent rules.
Is it my responsibility to do all the police work, figure it all out and turn them in?
According to the law, it is your responsibility to either pay or ID the driver.
It should be raise reasonable doubt that I am not the driver since there are others that COULD be the driver.
There is always a possibility (in the strict mathmatical sense) that a defendant is not responsible for a crime, despite even overwhelming evidence. However (again): Traffic Court is not Criminal Court. There are Different standards of evidence.
In Criminal court, the case must be proved "Beyond a Resonable Doubt" In Civil Court, the case must be proved "By a Preponderance of Evidence"
"Civil infractions" include those traffic violations that were de-criminalized by the Michigan Legislature several years ago. Instead of being classified as misdemeanors (where jail is a possible penalty), they are now only punishable by monetary fines and points on your driving record. Moving violations such as speeding, failing to signal, running a red light, improper turns, and failing to yield the right of way are all examples of civil infractions....
The burden of proof in a civil infraction matter is much different than a misdemeanor or felony matter. Unlike criminal cases (i.e. misdemeanor or felony matters) where the prosecution must prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt" in civil infractions, the prosecutor need only demonstrate that it is "more likely than not" that the accused violated the law.... "
It's "more likely than not" that (in the average case), the owner of the car is driving it. If this is not the case, you can explain to the judge:
Should an individual wish to contest the citation he received, that person would not usually have a trial, but rather a hearing. One of our magistrates... would conduct the hearing.
NOT a trial- a Hearing.
Not "beyond a resonable doubt"- 'preponderance of the evidence'.
Defendant: "Everybody in the house used that gun and I even let friends borrow it when they wanted." Prosecutor: "The victim was undoubtedly killed with your gun, and even though we can't show powder burns on your hands, can't prove you bought the bullets, have no credible witness that places you at the scene, admit that others could have had access to the gun, never bothered to see if you were even in the area at the time and never checked if you knew the victim, you must have done it because you bought the gun. FredKlein: "Hang the bastard!" Fuzznutz: "Wait a minute. The prosecutor never proved the case."
More like:
Prosecutor: The victim was killed by your expensive antique gun, which you keep secure in a safe [garage], and with a trigger lock [ignition key]. There are a limited number of keys for the safe and the trigger lock, and YOU happen to hold both of them. The law states that, unless you tell us who was really carrying the gun, YOU are resoponsible for any crimes committed with it. Defendant: Well, um,... it wasn't me. It was... someone else. Fuzznutz: Not guilty.
You see (as I've pointed out numerous times), Traffic Offences are NOT the same as Criminal Offences. They do not have the same rules of evidence, etc. That's why Parking tickets and Red Light tickets are written to the Owner of the car, not necessarily the Driver. Don't like it? Don't drive.
Yes, yes, yes. If there is NO evidence of guilt, the default is to assume the defendant Not Guilty. That does not apply in this case, since there IS evidence. (I freely admit it is poor evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless.)
The only "facts" are that somebody ran a red light in a car owned by the defendant. ...which points to the owner is the most likely person. A car is expensive. Most people don't let just anyone drive their $40,000 cars. So, the most likely driver is the owner.
The photo may show proof of the crime, but it certainly does not show proof it was committed by the owner of the car.
Agreed. But the way the Laws are written, the ticket goes to the owner anyway, until and unless they can point out the real driver.
The government pulls all kinds of crap like that- if you don't like it, then stop whining on/. and DO something about it.
One doesn't even have to have a valid drivers license to be penalized by this law. All I have to do is OWN one that other people drive.
I'm sure pointing out to the judge that you don't have a DL will be a point in your favor. Telling him who was actually driving will most likely get the fine taken away.
So here I am explaining why I think its a bad law, why I think its an unjust law, to bring more people around to my point of view. ...by arguing with someone who obviously does not agree with you, in a 2-day old thread that no one is reading anymore?
Slashdot Mirror
OF COURSE sleep mode isnt off, otherwise THE PHONE WOULD NOT ANSWER CALLS!
There is a difference between 'sleeping, but able to receive calls' and 'sleeping, and connecting automatically while roaming to download email and run up your bill'.
Pity you can't see the difference.
How is it possible, in this modern world, that people don't understand the basics of how a cell phone works?
That's the point- a normal cell phone does not download email (or, indeed, do much of anything) when 'off' (okay, "in sleep mode"). Yes, it receives calls. Yes, it notifies the closest cell tower it is within range, so as to be able to receive calls. The iPhone goes WAY beyond that and decides to connect (while roaming, no less!) and download email.
Do you automatically communicate with others when you are 'sleeping'?
Then why should an iPhone?
My 'closed clamshell' phone doesn't connect automatially to ANYTHING*.
*yes,it 'connects' to the nearest cell tower, to update it's location so as be able to receive incoming calls. But that doesn't cost me aything.
you have two particles that are both in both possible states at the same time.
:-)
Um, I don't get that.
I also don't get Schrodengers Cat, either. The cat is alive OR it is dead. Not 'both', not 'neither'. It is one or the other. It's only our knowledge which is indeterminate, up to the point we open the box and determine what the cat is.
And the same goes for quantum entanglement. Since the particles are entangled, one is 'red', the other 'blue'. (otherwise, they would not be engangled.) We just don't know which one is which. But they are one or the other.
It may be a big blow to some people, but our lack of knowledge about something does not magically make it indeterminate. We're just not that important.
There is: he refused to show a receipt.
...elect Georce Bush?
Sorry, wrong answer. It has been clearly held that, even for cops (which Circuit City employees are not even close to), the refusal to authorize a search is NOT reasonable cause to force a search.
pick 100 guys off the street and a majority of them will
This does not follow. The other reply addressed why.
It does most certainly follow. If there is no crime, there can be no evidence of a crime. "Circumstancial" evidence is just that- "evidence" of a crime that consists of the circumstances about the crime and criminal.
If there is a theft, and you are seen in the area, that is circumstancial evidence.
if there is NO theft, and you are seen somewhere, that is NOT evidence of any kind.
It's also clearly stated store policy.
It's my 'clearly stated policy' that, by responding to this post, you owe me $100. Pay up.
Oh, you don't agree to that policy, and won't pay? Well, I didn't agree to the store's policy, and won't let them search me.
For one, they would be enacting vigilante justice
You don't consider it "vigilante justice" to chase someone out into a parking lot and block their car from driving away?
They could contact the police
Why didn't Circuit City contact the police, if they really thought he was a shoplifter?
but then they would have to demonstrate not only probable cause that I stole it,
CC didn't demonstrate ANY cause that the guy in question stole anything.
once the supposed thief leaves the establishment, any special allowances vanish.
The guy was out in the parking lot, well outside the store.
Okay. Let's look at that.
I don't know the legalese, but I would assume that "reasonable suspicion" is defined something like 'evidence that would produce suspicion in a reasonable person'. Leaving aside the huge loophole of how 'reasonable' is defined, let's look at the rest. For it to be 'reasonable suspicion', they would need evidence that would lead them to think he shoplifted. Since he did, in fact, NOT shoplift, there can, by definition, be no evidence that he did shoplift. (You cannot have evidence of a crime that was not comitted.) Therefore, they had NO evidence. No evidence means no 'reasonable suspicion'.
Put in simpler terms: he did not shoplift, therefore they had no evidence that he shopifted, therefore they could not be 'reasonably suspicious' of him.
Until you show a receipt, the status of your merchandise (purchased or non-purchased) is unknown.
Well, considering I just walked 20 feet in a straight line from the CASH REGISTER to the door, I think that's a pretty good indication the items in my bag fall under the catagory of 'purchased'.
So, um, do you have a receipt for EVERY single item in your house? If not, but your own logic, a the store you bought you, oh, letts say 'Microwave'- the store you bought your microwave could bust in your door and take it back because you don't have a receipt for it.
Um, No.
The link You provided says
If they see you concealing merchandise does in no way equal "Unwillingness to produce a receipt".
I've raked a lock open before.
Lock picking is NOT that complicated. Basically, just apply a rotation to the cylinder, while pushing each pin up until you find the one that binds. (Locks are not perfect, one pin will usually bind before the others.) Push that pin up until the shearline is at the right point, and the cylinder will rotate slightly, keeping that pin in place. Repeat to find the next pin that binds.
Now, there are some types of locks that make it harder to do this. (Through various means I won't get into here.) But ANY lock can be 'picked', even if just by bruteforcing it.
There are some acronyms that have become so well-used that they are, for all intents and purposes, words themselves. Thus, there is no 'duplication' of wording when saying (for instance):
ATM Machine
SCUBA Gear (The 'A' stands for "Apparatus")
PIN number
VIN number
etc.
It's not what 'the tech support guy' says, it's what their TOS says. And I've NEVER seen a TOS that says 'browsing and email ONLY'.
As a matter of fact, RCN's own page, mentioning the features of one of their connections says:
That's a little bit more than "browsing and email".
>Define 'server'.
Read your own contract yourself.
Optimum Online:
Users may not run any type of server on the system. This includes but is not limited to FTP, IRC, SMTP, POP, HTTP, SOCKS, SQUID, DNS or any multi-user forums;
So, the definition of server DOES include FTP servers (at least for optimum online). But that phrase "includes but is not limited to..." means that ANYTHING could be called a server. They simply DO NOT DEFINE what they mean by 'server'. It's a catch-all thing that a lot of contracts have- a vague definition that means they can up and do anything they want. That WOW patcher? It's a Bittorrent client, and a server. We're cutting your internet off!
Yeah, except the contract ... likely specifies that the customer isn't allowed to host servers
Define 'server'.
If I telnet (I know) into my home PC from work, am I "running a telnet server"??
Technically, YES. But I sincerely doubt the tiny amount of traffic on the few occassions I connect will bankrupt my IPS.
If I FTP into my home PC from work, am I "running a FTP server"??
Same as above. As long as it is for personal use (IE: I'm not running a PUBLIC FTP site, it should be allowed.
If I connect to WOW, and download a patch using their downloader (which, due to the way it is made, also automatically uploads the bits of the file I already have to other people), am I "running a Bittorrent server"??
How about if I constantly DL from Bittorent 24/7?... at 5kb/s? 50kb/s? 500kb/s?
Does it matter WHAT I DL? What if I DL only overnight or duing working hours (when usage is low anyway?) What if I DL ONE CD (linux distro) during the busyist time of day, but then nothing for a week??
Things like that matter when determining how much 'strain' is put on the network. But ISPs ignore all that and make it against their rules to even telnet into your PC over the connection you pay for.
That would just encourage people to share or re-sell connections.
I buy a connection, assuming it's going to be maxxed out at 2000GB/month. I pay $600. I then provide my 4 neighbors a 500GB connection, for a rate of $400 each. (Note, this is a 20% discount off them buying direct from the ISP at $500!). I make $2000, I pay $600. Profit!
Wouldn't it be simpler for the telcos to charge per GB delivered in addition to the size of the pipe?
WOuldn't it be simplest for the ISPs to not offer "unlimited" service when they obviously have limits?
Give all your customers your fastest residential speed. Set your rate so 90% of your customers don't exceed the "monthly allowance" for your low-end rate plan.
And, after the top 10 percent are limited by this, re-calculate. Repeat each month until everyone is at dial-up speeds! (and paying for broadband!)
"Put your hand on top of your monitor. Feel that warmth? All electronic equipment creates heat. Too much heat fries electronics. I can "make it work" for the $$$ I mentioned, or we can keep spending $$$$ to replace fried equipment."
Presentation to Management:
Cost of replacing switches 3 times: $$$$
COst of lost time when phones go down: $$
cost of lost time while IT replaces switch instead of doing their real job: $$$
Cost of cutting a hole in the closet door and mounting a fan: $$
Savings that could conceivably go to the managers bonus: $$$$
Any questions?
You've never seen Ninja Warrior (Known in Japan as 'Sasuke').
Registered mail, someone has to SIGN for and accept. Then they have no wiggle-room...the other party is holding on to a piece of paper with your (or your representative's) signature.
So what? "Bob" in the mail room signed for it. What's that prove? The CEO can still claim he never got it.
I trust you added in interest and the additional fees you incurred?
The differences are:
1) Power, water, bread, and roads are NOT ADVERTISED as "unlimited". Broadband is.
2) You will not be artificially limited ('capped') bythe water/electric company of you 'use too much'.
Red Light Camera tickets are sent to the owner of the car. They are not 'left on the car' to be paid by the offending party, but are mailed to the owner, the only piece of identification the cops have (based on the license plate in the photo). If the owner does not want to pay it, the owner can ID the offending party.
See? Quite similar.
The only differences are because the Parking ticket is physically left on the car, while the Red light ticket cannot be, so they have to send it somewhere. The logical place is the owner of the car.
If I run a light or speed and am pulled over by a real live cop, do you think he will issue the citation in the name of the owner of the car?
A camera is not "a real live cop". Different situation, diferent rules.
Is it my responsibility to do all the police work, figure it all out and turn them in?
According to the law, it is your responsibility to either pay or ID the driver.
It should be raise reasonable doubt that I am not the driver since there are others that COULD be the driver.
There is always a possibility (in the strict mathmatical sense) that a defendant is not responsible for a crime, despite even overwhelming evidence. However (again): Traffic Court is not Criminal Court. There are Different standards of evidence.
In Criminal court, the case must be proved "Beyond a Resonable Doubt"
In Civil Court, the case must be proved "By a Preponderance of Evidence"
http://www.35thdistrictcourt.org/criminaldivision
It's "more likely than not" that (in the average case), the owner of the car is driving it. If this is not the case, you can explain to the judge:
Should an individual wish to contest the citation he received, that person would not usually have a trial, but rather a hearing. One of our magistrates... would conduct the hearing.
NOT a trial- a Hearing.
Not "beyond a resonable doubt"- 'preponderance of the evidence'.
More like:
Prosecutor: The victim was killed by your expensive antique gun, which you keep secure in a safe [garage], and with a trigger lock [ignition key]. There are a limited number of keys for the safe and the trigger lock, and YOU happen to hold both of them. The law states that, unless you tell us who was really carrying the gun, YOU are resoponsible for any crimes committed with it.
Defendant: Well, um,... it wasn't me. It was... someone else.
Fuzznutz: Not guilty.
You see (as I've pointed out numerous times), Traffic Offences are NOT the same as Criminal Offences. They do not have the same rules of evidence, etc. That's why Parking tickets and Red Light tickets are written to the Owner of the car, not necessarily the Driver. Don't like it? Don't drive.
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY
...which points to the owner is the most likely person. A car is expensive. Most people don't let just anyone drive their $40,000 cars. So, the most likely driver is the owner.
/. and DO something about it.
Yes, yes, yes. If there is NO evidence of guilt, the default is to assume the defendant Not Guilty. That does not apply in this case, since there IS evidence. (I freely admit it is poor evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless.)
The only "facts" are that somebody ran a red light in a car owned by the defendant.
The photo may show proof of the crime, but it certainly does not show proof it was committed by the owner of the car.
Agreed. But the way the Laws are written, the ticket goes to the owner anyway, until and unless they can point out the real driver.
The government pulls all kinds of crap like that- if you don't like it, then stop whining on
One doesn't even have to have a valid drivers license to be penalized by this law. All I have to do is OWN one that other people drive.
...by arguing with someone who obviously does not agree with you, in a 2-day old thread that no one is reading anymore?
I'm sure pointing out to the judge that you don't have a DL will be a point in your favor. Telling him who was actually driving will most likely get the fine taken away.
So here I am explaining why I think its a bad law, why I think its an unjust law, to bring more people around to my point of view.