On the other hand, if you can regularly pass physical roadside sobriety tests even when you blow above the limit, then refusing the breathalyzer - or at the very least, demanding a blood test - can be a smart move.
We already had this conversation decades ago. We decided that since hacking is so difficult to catch and prosecute, we would make the punishment severe to deter crime.
The punishment has alrealy been measured against the crime and has been found proportional in context.
What you seem to be claiming is that 16 year old perpetrators somehow totally upend the calculation. You have anything to support that wild claim?
100% of everyone is an asshole sometimes. That doesn't innoculate them against the law.
A three year old may not understand what he did when he shoots and kills someone. A sixteen year old knows goddam well what he's doing. Being 16 doesn't make you immune to crime.
If your 16 year child old can't figure out how to use a network legally, then you shouldn't be letting them near a computer. Raise your fucking kids. When you let society do it, they end up with a dozen felony charges.
Schools do not have the resources to deal with information security. Their options are to get rid of digital records, or to escalate issues to the police.
If you hack a system, you're a criminal. If you are a high school student, you know it is a crime. We recognize that hacking is difficult to prosecute, so the penalties are severe. I have no sympathy for someone using hacking to give themselves an advantage over their peers.
Grow up. I would suggest doing so outside of prison, but if you can't manage that, you can join the accelerated program with other people who didn't manage to grow up in time.
If we actually prioritized safety over practicality and freedom, then driving would be handled by professionals. Regular people should not be able to drive and put everyone in danger.
But we don't prioritize safety over practicality and freedom, because that would be idiotic.
No, it's because it's America, where there's room to build ugly, functional building in the middle of an otherwise unoccupied forest, invisible to anyone who doesn't work there.
The War on Drugs isn't a liberal policy. Clinton may have been responsible for the largest ramp-up, but it was started by Nixon and really got going under Reagan. Carter tried to wind it down. Obama tried to wind it down. One Democrat's support does not make something a liberal policy.
If Apple disagrees with the broad applicability of Qualcomm's patents, they can build their own mobile chips and fight the patents on that front. Or they can use Intel chips, which are available and prove that you're talking out your ass when it comes to anyone being required to use Qualcomm. Instead Apple chose to license from Qualcomm, but doesn't want Qualcomm to have the right to set prices. Apple is fighting for market protection under the guise of patent litigation. So much for competing by building a better product...
OK, so if they can have a nuclear device 18 months after the end of the agreement, wouldn't it make sense to not end the agreement? Wouldn't it make sense to find new reasons to extend the agreement?
How is ending the agreement helping keep Iran from nuclear weapons?
Or the CIA is very good at redirecting illegal resources around unstable regions. At least I imagine that's the Russian narrative which includes false flag chemical attacks in Syria by the British.
Economic ties usually means building McDonald's and shipping things from Amazon.com. It does not mean sending money to governments. You're thinking of foreign aid.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, if you can regularly pass physical roadside sobriety tests even when you blow above the limit, then refusing the breathalyzer - or at the very least, demanding a blood test - can be a smart move.
That is a decision to be made by the juvenile court system. It's not on the school or the police to protect young criminals from justice.
If a minor held a teacher at gunpoint to change their grades, would that make it a school issue and not a criminal one?
I would not hire your lawyer friend.
See, 18 U.S. Code  1111 - Murder
We already had this conversation decades ago. We decided that since hacking is so difficult to catch and prosecute, we would make the punishment severe to deter crime.
The punishment has alrealy been measured against the crime and has been found proportional in context.
What you seem to be claiming is that 16 year old perpetrators somehow totally upend the calculation. You have anything to support that wild claim?
You don't know the definition of hacker.
100% of everyone is an asshole sometimes. That doesn't innoculate them against the law.
A three year old may not understand what he did when he shoots and kills someone. A sixteen year old knows goddam well what he's doing. Being 16 doesn't make you immune to crime.
If your 16 year child old can't figure out how to use a network legally, then you shouldn't be letting them near a computer. Raise your fucking kids. When you let society do it, they end up with a dozen felony charges.
Schools do not have the resources to deal with information security. Their options are to get rid of digital records, or to escalate issues to the police.
If you hack a system, you're a criminal. If you are a high school student, you know it is a crime. We recognize that hacking is difficult to prosecute, so the penalties are severe. I have no sympathy for someone using hacking to give themselves an advantage over their peers.
Grow up. I would suggest doing so outside of prison, but if you can't manage that, you can join the accelerated program with other people who didn't manage to grow up in time.
Maybe if he did it sixteen times to sixteen different teachers, yeah.
You don't need quantization to solve Zeno's paradox. You just need limits and a basic understanding of how infinity works in algebra.
If we actually prioritized safety over practicality and freedom, then driving would be handled by professionals. Regular people should not be able to drive and put everyone in danger.
But we don't prioritize safety over practicality and freedom, because that would be idiotic.
No, it's because it's America, where there's room to build ugly, functional building in the middle of an otherwise unoccupied forest, invisible to anyone who doesn't work there.
Not true. They simply revoke your license. You are not required to submit to any needles going in your body.
The War on Drugs isn't a liberal policy. Clinton may have been responsible for the largest ramp-up, but it was started by Nixon and really got going under Reagan. Carter tried to wind it down. Obama tried to wind it down. One Democrat's support does not make something a liberal policy.
80% of Republicans in Congress voted for the Civil Rights Act. 65% of Democrats did.
Why does this need to be disabled ever? How is it ever better to ignore obvious line breaks?
Fanboy much?
If Apple disagrees with the broad applicability of Qualcomm's patents, they can build their own mobile chips and fight the patents on that front. Or they can use Intel chips, which are available and prove that you're talking out your ass when it comes to anyone being required to use Qualcomm. Instead Apple chose to license from Qualcomm, but doesn't want Qualcomm to have the right to set prices. Apple is fighting for market protection under the guise of patent litigation. So much for competing by building a better product...
OK, so if they can have a nuclear device 18 months after the end of the agreement, wouldn't it make sense to not end the agreement? Wouldn't it make sense to find new reasons to extend the agreement?
How is ending the agreement helping keep Iran from nuclear weapons?
Or the CIA is very good at redirecting illegal resources around unstable regions. At least I imagine that's the Russian narrative which includes false flag chemical attacks in Syria by the British.
I mean... duh.
It's in the Constitution. It's not like we keep it a secret. Every one of our allies knows the weight of an executive order.
Economic ties usually means building McDonald's and shipping things from Amazon.com. It does not mean sending money to governments. You're thinking of foreign aid.
It's good to have a reasonable, moderate president like Iran, instead of a crazy right-wing president like the U.S.
No one paid Iran anything. Stop watching Fox News.
That was because some big players hadn't upgraded to the latest protocol. The issue has been largely mitigated.