you are describing a tort claim, not a federal crime at the end of the day we are still talking about minimal damages and harm. I think an argument for a simple assault may hold a little water but I am unaware of a federal statute that covers simple assault. We are talking about a minor misdemeanor at most, but that ignores the real free speech issues. I am also skeptical of the victims claim of having a seizure. Perhaps it's true and the evidence will show that the victim does not take antiseizure meds that are required to have a drivers license, but I remain skeptical.
simple assault is not a federal crime even if we were to stipulate that it applies here. The further claim that cyberstalking happened is also very weak. Stalking needs more than a few emails over a very short period of time.
I really hope this one goes to trial and then some interesting appeals. It's not clear what statute they claim was violated here but I am not buying the argument that a criminal act was committed.
Then why not describe the novel techniques you developed to complete the research in the paper? Any process that is claimed to require special abilities is actually one the needs training.
Your comment is very presumptuous about both my point and my views. I don't care about NSL's or FISA warrants. I don't care about going after terrorists or enemy combatants. I care about Americans in America who the government is abusing. I care about real people, whom I have personally spoken with, who have and are facing these issues, not people in some thought experiment. Some of them are non-Abrahamic religious minorities that the government seems obsessed with, mostly due to a lack of understanding of their religion. People and causes you have never heard about...
I care about warrants issued by in district courts that function as rubber stamps. I read search warrants every day and more then you may suspect are very weak. They have a very diluted view on what probable cause is. These warrants are generally sealed and in many cases the subject of them is never notified that they were the subject of a search. I am not just talking about electronic records; mail, cars, homes are all searched in this way. I think you would be shocked at the number of packages that both state and federal search warrants are obtained for and are not found to contain anything illegal. In these cases the package is repacked and delivered to the recipient without notification. These searches as documented in my local courts are no more accurate than a coin toss. But if you are on the wrong side of the coin toss, good luck, your life just got incredibly difficult.
If someone wants to make you a target than all an agent of the government needs is to claim to have been identified by an informant, that claim alone passes as probable cause in this world. The "informant" is never made available to the judge for questioning, they just take the agents word for it. The records of this search could stay sealed for years but don't expect a notification when its unsealed if you are an unknowing subject of one. As for subpoenas, they are rubber stamped, they are not subject to judicial review. The government just issues them to themselves. The court only gets involved if you say no.
As for something that impacts me, if a warrant is actually supported by probable cause, and the judge makes an inquiry into the facts of the matter, then I am cool with it being issued. What more often happens is the judge reads the application and signs it. When you fail to be skeptical, then you become a rubber stamp. I believe that it should be very hard for the government to invade your privacy or convict you of a crime. Our society has given the government far too much latitude in these matters and it needs to be rolled back.
So now they need to get a rubber stamp to get into old emails. I really don't see the difference, instead of getting the subpoena rubber stamped, they need a magistrate judge (non-appointed rubber stamper) to stamp them. This is an insulting joke.
Smoking calms people because they are effectively engaging in deep breathing exercises as they smoke. Nicotine is a stimulant and by itself should not calm people.
They got a default judgment against him, they did not win on the merits of the case. Default judgments are not so final when the other party wants to fight about it some more.
Or the conclusion that we should leave the drug users and religious people alone. For at least one very large subset of drug users, it basically already is a religion. They have music, dancing, community, charity, and pilgrimages. Let adults live the life they choose.
The UK has semi-secret ballots, its an effective system of keeping a persons choice secret but can be looked into if a legitimate issue exists. Something like that would meet the needs of privacy and allow for better ballot security.
The only way to ensure no monkey business is to have a new take on the secret ballot. Either return to pre-1884 public voting and publish everyone's choice or some anonymized identifier so people can verify their ballots were counted as marked. No amount of audit trails will ever be truly verifiable if state actors are in the mix.
So you think marijuana should be illegal for the same reasons I assume? Whatever the state deems in a persons best interest should be law, right? What about when the state is wrong? Like perhaps when they told us to change our diets to try and avoid heart disease and made the problem worse? Randomness in society performs an important function. Without it we can create some genetic messes that are beyond our current understanding. For that reason, people should be left to live their lives however they want. Let the passage of time decide if it matters, not men who usually get things wrong. I get that the risk of adverse vaccine reactions is far lower then what the risk would have been for the condition being vaccinated. That doesn't change a person who does the risk/reward and sees no upside to a rare condition in their area with a known risk factor. It doesn't make them stupid, they evaluated the risk/reward environment and came up with a different answer then you did. If that answer burns them, so be it. You can't use force and ridicule to make people do everything you want and win every argument. Due to that mindset, we are going to get President Trump. Good job guys...
The thing with people who make arguments like this is they rarely have children and usually state a desire to never have children. But they sure are concerned about what our children are doing. Being a parent is incredibly complex compared to what I expected. Even as a biomedical scientist, I can't bring myself to get on the case of parents who choose different paths. For those that think its such a big deal, they should have kids and get them vaccinated or whatever thing they will be bitching about what parents do next week.
Assuming that the auto-drive was on and there was no tampering of the system then, it should be payed out the same way as no-fault insurance (a model we should have moved to decades ago).
Just wanted to point out how no fault works as it is commonly misunderstood. No fault coverage, more commonly called something like personal injury protection (PIP), is a bucket of insurance that covers the policy holder and members of their household. This coverage is usually a small amount of money like $20k. It pays for the first $20k in medical bills and work loss resulting from an accident for the policy holder. In no way does no fault or PIP absolve a party to an accident from liability. If a person is injured in an accident, their PIP/no fault coverage pays their first 20k in medical bills and if the other driver has some level of fault, their liability coverage pays the remaining claims. Its also important to understand that everyone has some level of fault in an accident, even the guy who was hit in a parked car. If you live in a no fault state review your policy and correct your worldview on the most misunderstood insurance concept that has ever been devised.
Facebook has a duty to protect its core business. People are more likely to abandon Facebook if they try and push a political slant. People are not stupid and see through crap like that. The general discourse on Facebook is already so low that I closed up shop there months ago and have no plans to return. It has become a cesspool. If Facebook wants to become the next Myspace, they should be sure to give those on the edge of quitting a little push.
Organizing plaintiffs for individual arbitration would cost ATT is the obvious answer. Boiler plait arbitration demands can be used by all and the simplified process can be managed my most without much trouble.
Because everyone will take all of their money out of the bank robbing the bank and the monetary wizards their negative interest rate. In turn the banks collapse due to the negative interest rate inspired bank run.
You state "Still voting for Bernie" as your subject and then go on to write an essay that has nothing to do with that argument (see non sequitur.) Nothing about my response is about the credibility of Bernie or Trump. It is about the credibility of their supporters who regularly employ fallacies in the promotion of their preferred candidate. You then reply with an ad hominem when a comment comes pointing out that blind faith is troubling regardless of who is doing it. Support whoever you want, but please, use logic and reason instead of fallacy and emotion. If your guy takes a position that you would burn someone at the stake for, hold them to the same standard. The powers that are trying to "regulate" encryption will not be stopped without holding politicians feet to the fire. No one, Bern, Trump, etc gets a free pass on an abhorrent and technically disastrous policy. When you give a pass on a topic, you tell them that it is not important and this is one of the most important issues.
I suspect Bernie could shoot someone in the street and you would still vote for him. There is little difference between Sanders and Trump supporters in their blind faith.
Slashdot Mirror
you are describing a tort claim, not a federal crime at the end of the day we are still talking about minimal damages and harm. I think an argument for a simple assault may hold a little water but I am unaware of a federal statute that covers simple assault. We are talking about a minor misdemeanor at most, but that ignores the real free speech issues. I am also skeptical of the victims claim of having a seizure. Perhaps it's true and the evidence will show that the victim does not take antiseizure meds that are required to have a drivers license, but I remain skeptical.
simple assault is not a federal crime even if we were to stipulate that it applies here. The further claim that cyberstalking happened is also very weak. Stalking needs more than a few emails over a very short period of time.
I really hope this one goes to trial and then some interesting appeals. It's not clear what statute they claim was violated here but I am not buying the argument that a criminal act was committed.
Because the "fraud" could be conducted by unapproved players who are not paid up with the right people. that can not stand!
I still have a handful of friends who haven't transitioned to xmpp or another system in pidgin.
Then why not describe the novel techniques you developed to complete the research in the paper? Any process that is claimed to require special abilities is actually one the needs training.
Your comment is very presumptuous about both my point and my views. I don't care about NSL's or FISA warrants. I don't care about going after terrorists or enemy combatants. I care about Americans in America who the government is abusing. I care about real people, whom I have personally spoken with, who have and are facing these issues, not people in some thought experiment. Some of them are non-Abrahamic religious minorities that the government seems obsessed with, mostly due to a lack of understanding of their religion. People and causes you have never heard about...
I care about warrants issued by in district courts that function as rubber stamps. I read search warrants every day and more then you may suspect are very weak. They have a very diluted view on what probable cause is. These warrants are generally sealed and in many cases the subject of them is never notified that they were the subject of a search. I am not just talking about electronic records; mail, cars, homes are all searched in this way. I think you would be shocked at the number of packages that both state and federal search warrants are obtained for and are not found to contain anything illegal. In these cases the package is repacked and delivered to the recipient without notification. These searches as documented in my local courts are no more accurate than a coin toss. But if you are on the wrong side of the coin toss, good luck, your life just got incredibly difficult.
If someone wants to make you a target than all an agent of the government needs is to claim to have been identified by an informant, that claim alone passes as probable cause in this world. The "informant" is never made available to the judge for questioning, they just take the agents word for it. The records of this search could stay sealed for years but don't expect a notification when its unsealed if you are an unknowing subject of one. As for subpoenas, they are rubber stamped, they are not subject to judicial review. The government just issues them to themselves. The court only gets involved if you say no.
As for something that impacts me, if a warrant is actually supported by probable cause, and the judge makes an inquiry into the facts of the matter, then I am cool with it being issued. What more often happens is the judge reads the application and signs it. When you fail to be skeptical, then you become a rubber stamp. I believe that it should be very hard for the government to invade your privacy or convict you of a crime. Our society has given the government far too much latitude in these matters and it needs to be rolled back.
So now they need to get a rubber stamp to get into old emails. I really don't see the difference, instead of getting the subpoena rubber stamped, they need a magistrate judge (non-appointed rubber stamper) to stamp them. This is an insulting joke.
Smoking calms people because they are effectively engaging in deep breathing exercises as they smoke. Nicotine is a stimulant and by itself should not calm people.
They got a default judgment against him, they did not win on the merits of the case. Default judgments are not so final when the other party wants to fight about it some more.
It would nice if there were some primary sources in this post.....
Or the conclusion that we should leave the drug users and religious people alone. For at least one very large subset of drug users, it basically already is a religion. They have music, dancing, community, charity, and pilgrimages. Let adults live the life they choose.
The UK has semi-secret ballots, its an effective system of keeping a persons choice secret but can be looked into if a legitimate issue exists. Something like that would meet the needs of privacy and allow for better ballot security.
The only way to ensure no monkey business is to have a new take on the secret ballot. Either return to pre-1884 public voting and publish everyone's choice or some anonymized identifier so people can verify their ballots were counted as marked. No amount of audit trails will ever be truly verifiable if state actors are in the mix.
The neighborhood associations need to hire someone to drive back and forward on the route at 2.5 mph during peek hours.
So you think marijuana should be illegal for the same reasons I assume? Whatever the state deems in a persons best interest should be law, right? What about when the state is wrong? Like perhaps when they told us to change our diets to try and avoid heart disease and made the problem worse? Randomness in society performs an important function. Without it we can create some genetic messes that are beyond our current understanding. For that reason, people should be left to live their lives however they want. Let the passage of time decide if it matters, not men who usually get things wrong. I get that the risk of adverse vaccine reactions is far lower then what the risk would have been for the condition being vaccinated. That doesn't change a person who does the risk/reward and sees no upside to a rare condition in their area with a known risk factor. It doesn't make them stupid, they evaluated the risk/reward environment and came up with a different answer then you did. If that answer burns them, so be it. You can't use force and ridicule to make people do everything you want and win every argument. Due to that mindset, we are going to get President Trump. Good job guys...
The thing with people who make arguments like this is they rarely have children and usually state a desire to never have children. But they sure are concerned about what our children are doing. Being a parent is incredibly complex compared to what I expected. Even as a biomedical scientist, I can't bring myself to get on the case of parents who choose different paths. For those that think its such a big deal, they should have kids and get them vaccinated or whatever thing they will be bitching about what parents do next week.
Assuming that the auto-drive was on and there was no tampering of the system then, it should be payed out the same way as no-fault insurance (a model we should have moved to decades ago).
Just wanted to point out how no fault works as it is commonly misunderstood. No fault coverage, more commonly called something like personal injury protection (PIP), is a bucket of insurance that covers the policy holder and members of their household. This coverage is usually a small amount of money like $20k. It pays for the first $20k in medical bills and work loss resulting from an accident for the policy holder. In no way does no fault or PIP absolve a party to an accident from liability. If a person is injured in an accident, their PIP/no fault coverage pays their first 20k in medical bills and if the other driver has some level of fault, their liability coverage pays the remaining claims. Its also important to understand that everyone has some level of fault in an accident, even the guy who was hit in a parked car. If you live in a no fault state review your policy and correct your worldview on the most misunderstood insurance concept that has ever been devised.
Facebook has a duty to protect its core business. People are more likely to abandon Facebook if they try and push a political slant. People are not stupid and see through crap like that. The general discourse on Facebook is already so low that I closed up shop there months ago and have no plans to return. It has become a cesspool. If Facebook wants to become the next Myspace, they should be sure to give those on the edge of quitting a little push.
Organizing plaintiffs for individual arbitration would cost ATT is the obvious answer. Boiler plait arbitration demands can be used by all and the simplified process can be managed my most without much trouble.
The trouble is that it won't stop at 0.50%, when that doesn't work it will be 1% and so on and so on.
Because everyone will take all of their money out of the bank robbing the bank and the monetary wizards their negative interest rate. In turn the banks collapse due to the negative interest rate inspired bank run.
You state "Still voting for Bernie" as your subject and then go on to write an essay that has nothing to do with that argument (see non sequitur.) Nothing about my response is about the credibility of Bernie or Trump. It is about the credibility of their supporters who regularly employ fallacies in the promotion of their preferred candidate. You then reply with an ad hominem when a comment comes pointing out that blind faith is troubling regardless of who is doing it. Support whoever you want, but please, use logic and reason instead of fallacy and emotion. If your guy takes a position that you would burn someone at the stake for, hold them to the same standard. The powers that are trying to "regulate" encryption will not be stopped without holding politicians feet to the fire. No one, Bern, Trump, etc gets a free pass on an abhorrent and technically disastrous policy. When you give a pass on a topic, you tell them that it is not important and this is one of the most important issues.
I suspect Bernie could shoot someone in the street and you would still vote for him. There is little difference between Sanders and Trump supporters in their blind faith.
TFA doesn't paint a good picture of Sanders on this issue.