Excuse me, that's how it works. The hamon is set back from the edge a ways, so it'll be okay. Anyway, howdid you think thy took care of nicks and gouges?
Somebody thought it'd be a good idea to have a "beauty contest" with unwilling contestants, and some of the organizers of the "contest" went over the top. Right now the law doesn't really provide a remedy for that sort of thing.
Yes it does - Model releases are an accepted mechanism for allowing people to use your face for certain purposes. Sometimes you need one, sometimes not. I'd like to see how this sort of situation would come out, though.
I'm not really disputing your point (for the most part), but this is sort of a problem when you're dealing with non-national groups. Basically, you've said that only nations are allowed to go kill soldiers. Everybody else is just a criminal.
Terrorism isn't really intuitive or smart in any way it just relies on being able to pull off something without getting caught.
That makes no sense. Terrorism doesn't always rely on not being caught, just being audacious and actually doing the thing. If you are able to go blow up something important and not get caught, then you're probably smart, because it isn't intuitive.
Hey, if you're willing to break the law to prosecute someone, as a department, why would you prosecute the cop? Best way around this is to throw out the evidence.
You should really study history some more. Allowing people to break the law to collect evidence leads to more lawbreaking, as that gets more convictions. Really, if you know that beating someone until they tell you where the bodies are, you might be willing to beat people on the off chance that they confess.
The problem is that, should you allow that, illegally obtained evidence encourages people to behave illegally - this undermines the whole legal system, especially with the fairly poor track record of prosecuting dirty cops. Better to let a murderer go free than condemn an innocent man.
This is resulting in false positives which, when reported, police officials are obligated to investigate
If cops don't have to respond to a rape in progress, they sure as hell don't have to investigate every report of 'radiation', especially if most are fake.
Want a fully automatic M16 in your Manhattan apartment? Keep it in the closet along with 5-6 (probably also illegal) 30 round magazines and shut up about it. Lots cheaper than permitting, unless you have to use it, of course.
Smoke detectors - good example. Fires are far more common than nuclear attack (two events ever), but I don't see anybody requiring people to register them. anyway, what makes you think the nut brigade won't have proepr detectors (that they don't know how to use)? If you're batshit insane, you'll probably spend a lot of resources on the focus of your madness.
Ban geiger counters because people might panic? That's just stupid - panicky idiots will find something to panic over. Maybe this wouldn't be a problem if we didn't have news channels whipping people into a froth over terr'rists and pedophiles.
Unless you make a positive and unambiguous claim that you are giving legal advice, then nothing you say should ever be construed as such.
If you are a lawyer (even retired), it's probably best to play it safe. I'm not one, so I comment on legal manners without worrying that someone might think I'm giving them legal advice. What are they going to do, tell a judge that Fulcrum of Evil told them this is how things are?
What? You have the right to keep them and bear them - two separate things. The point of the 2nd ammendment is to allow for armed insurrection, so I don't see the gub really caring about duck hunters.
Why would someone with a healthy self-image want to surround herself with people like that? I'd put my money on surrounding herself with them was to make herself feel better about herself.
Anonymous also fails to realize that most people don't give a crap about stuff on the internet outside of email and maybe some major news sites. It'll be amusing to watch, though.
These are/b/tards - they don't care about changing things, they're doing it for lulz and carnage.
Slashdot Mirror
Excuse me, that's how it works. The hamon is set back from the edge a ways, so it'll be okay. Anyway, howdid you think thy took care of nicks and gouges?
What risk does my soda pose to you, anyway?
You sharpen it just like any other blade - you grind the edge.
Somebody thought it'd be a good idea to have a "beauty contest" with unwilling contestants, and some of the organizers of the "contest" went over the top. Right now the law doesn't really provide a remedy for that sort of thing.
Yes it does - Model releases are an accepted mechanism for allowing people to use your face for certain purposes. Sometimes you need one, sometimes not. I'd like to see how this sort of situation would come out, though.
What, did you think that these people started off as terrorists? No, they started off as normal people.
I'm not really disputing your point (for the most part), but this is sort of a problem when you're dealing with non-national groups. Basically, you've said that only nations are allowed to go kill soldiers. Everybody else is just a criminal.
Terrorism isn't really intuitive or smart in any way it just relies on being able to pull off something without getting caught.
That makes no sense. Terrorism doesn't always rely on not being caught, just being audacious and actually doing the thing. If you are able to go blow up something important and not get caught, then you're probably smart, because it isn't intuitive.
Hey, if you're willing to break the law to prosecute someone, as a department, why would you prosecute the cop? Best way around this is to throw out the evidence.
You should really study history some more. Allowing people to break the law to collect evidence leads to more lawbreaking, as that gets more convictions. Really, if you know that beating someone until they tell you where the bodies are, you might be willing to beat people on the off chance that they confess.
The problem is that, should you allow that, illegally obtained evidence encourages people to behave illegally - this undermines the whole legal system, especially with the fairly poor track record of prosecuting dirty cops. Better to let a murderer go free than condemn an innocent man.
This is resulting in false positives which, when reported, police officials are obligated to investigate
If cops don't have to respond to a rape in progress, they sure as hell don't have to investigate every report of 'radiation', especially if most are fake.
Want a fully automatic M16 in your Manhattan apartment? Keep it in the closet along with 5-6 (probably also illegal) 30 round magazines and shut up about it. Lots cheaper than permitting, unless you have to use it, of course.
Smoke detectors - good example. Fires are far more common than nuclear attack (two events ever), but I don't see anybody requiring people to register them. anyway, what makes you think the nut brigade won't have proepr detectors (that they don't know how to use)? If you're batshit insane, you'll probably spend a lot of resources on the focus of your madness.
Ban geiger counters because people might panic? That's just stupid - panicky idiots will find something to panic over. Maybe this wouldn't be a problem if we didn't have news channels whipping people into a froth over terr'rists and pedophiles.
That goes both ways. Besides, they've been around longer than you have.
What did firearm makers ever do to you? I can see the tobaco thing, but guns are just guns.
Unless you make a positive and unambiguous claim that you are giving legal advice, then nothing you say should ever be construed as such.
If you are a lawyer (even retired), it's probably best to play it safe. I'm not one, so I comment on legal manners without worrying that someone might think I'm giving them legal advice. What are they going to do, tell a judge that Fulcrum of Evil told them this is how things are?
The whole point of using polonium wasn't to effect political change, though - it was so the victim knew exactly who killed him.
Our cops are highly variable. Seattle cops are OK, but Chicago cops are dicks.
I dunno, I'd rather live anywhere that allows guns - they seem to have less egregious behavior by cops.
Only the first one of those things is illegal to possess, and it's pretty easy to claim that the email wasn't solicited.
What? You have the right to keep them and bear them - two separate things. The point of the 2nd ammendment is to allow for armed insurrection, so I don't see the gub really caring about duck hunters.
Why would someone with a healthy self-image want to surround herself with people like that? I'd put my money on surrounding herself with them was to make herself feel better about herself.
Because it's good business.
Ask and ye shall receive. Ah, and here's one of the more famous death things.
Anonymous also fails to realize that most people don't give a crap about stuff on the internet outside of email and maybe some major news sites. It'll be amusing to watch, though.
These are /b/tards - they don't care about changing things, they're doing it for lulz and carnage.