I think treason might be a bit harsh. The issue here is that many violations of the constitution are not obvious to the nonstudied eye. If the superme court (which - their political biases aside consists of some of the nations best lawyers) can disagree over the constitutionality of a law, I doubt we can expect a run of the mill congresscritter to interpret make the correct interpretation all the time.
What I WOULD like to see, is a law stating that anyone sponsering a law found to be in egregious violation of the bill of rights would be immedatly removed from office and permenantly banned from ever holding public office.
There was actually a legal case close to me (Pittsburgh) where an underage girl was arrested and charged with distributing child pornography after posting naked pictures of herself.
I believe the charges were dropped but I'm not certain.
This leads to a while (off topic) ugly serious of questions. Cases like the above were obviously not how child pornography laws were intended. My understanding is that the intention is to protect children from sexual predators exploiting them. How does the inscreasing ability of children to "publish" on their own, combined with earlier sexual activity affect this?
While it's idiotic, I certianly don't think that a 14 y/o should be criminally liable for a picture/video another 14 y/o sends him.
Yes, most states do. However I believe simple possesion is also a federal crime carrying a mandatory 5 year minimum, with sentences graduated up to 10 and 15 years depending on the amount.
In most areas the federal proscuter takes only a very small portion of cases. Some federal proscuters have a policy of only taking cases involving over a certain amount of contradband. Or (here's the dicey one) is some areas only cases the federal proscuter takes a special interest in .
In short if someone in power doesn't like you, you can get five years for that loose joint.
Note: This information if mostly from the "reefer madness article" that appeared in the Atlantic Monthly, it is several years out of date but is still accurate as far as I know.
"In the US alone, or, more exactly, in the U.S. only. (well, it happened in Europe. Once.) The problem is NOT Quake, Doom, violent video games, or even Marilyn Manson. Consider this: ONLY in the U.S. are guns so easily available. If there is a problem here, I'd argue that it is NOT John Carmack; the problem here is N.R.A., and the fact that anybody out there can arm himself/herself to its teeth."
- This is simply NOT true AT ALL. There are countries with FEWER restrictions on firearms that have much lower homicide rates than the US. Consider Switzerland, every male between 18 and 50 (or 60?) is required to take part in the military reserve. In order to increase response times, they have all their gear, including weapon and ammunition at their house. Now care to compare the homicide rate per capita in Switzerland to that of the US?
Easy access to weapons may be a factor in violence, but saying the problems with violence in the US are due to the availibility of weapons is a gross oversimplification.
IIRC the idea that neutron bombs have almost no fireball is a myth. The neutron bomb was designed to take out Soviet Tank formations that would be relatively protected from the heat and blast effects of standard tactical nukes. It is intended as a theatre area tactical weapon. Even for unshielded troops the lethal area for the blast/shockwave is still greater than the lethal area for radiation effects. Anyone with more knowledge care to comment?
hmmm, could it be not that the Enron Exec should be punished more, but that the former criminal should be punished less? Think about it, the answer to unequal treatemnt isn't always to up the ante.
BTW.. These two crimes are also not equivelent at all. Consider the risk posed by people from a robber brandashing a gun - no where in (most) white collar crimes is there that kind of immediate risk to people's lives.
The point remains that there is a BIG difference between deliberty causing someone harm and harm caused by irresponsible conduct. No one on the felony murder law page was arguing that Janet does not bear responsibility for the results of her irresponsible actions. They were arguing that punishing someone who is irresponsible with the same degree of severity as someone who is intentinally harmfull is unethical.
In most states a charge of first degree murder requires INTENT TO KILL, get the point here, the intent DOES MATTER. The law Jannet was prosecuted under failes to take that into account. As stated on the page, a charge of involuntary manslaughter would have been much more appropiate to these circumstances.
- Hussain is far from a fanatic, he is actually very pragmatic. He has done an excellent job defying both the US and the UN for over a decade by knowing just how far to push without going too far.
By the way, with regard to links between Iraq and terrorism, read the earlier CIA report, which stated that there was no significant evidence linking Iraq to groups like al quada (dammit I can't spell).
Iraq may be a threat for its own reasons, but don't make the mistake of lumping all our potiental enemies under one label.
I sincerly hope that I'm not just feeding the trolls here. But the "assertion that the Bush administration is intent on creating a repressive police state" is not too far off.
I am NOT saying the the Democrats are not equally responsible for supporting the current fear and hysteria, but the Bush administration is behind an almost unprecedented expansion of executive authority, which began even before 911. I don't want to write a book here, but I am happy to back this up.
Their intention may not be to create a police state, but they are breaking down the normal checks and balences placed on the power of the executive branch - do you trust that everyone in power after king George will use their unchecked powers responsibly?
Yes, but not until the next election (obviously). Sadly, the general public is very uninformed about these issues so this kind of legislation is unlikely to be discussed in upcoming elections.
See some of the comments from a Slashdot story last night about freedom of the press in the US. The mainstream newspapers are (for the most part) owned by the same companies that have bought this congress- critter, niche news sources are written off as fringe nutcases.
Getting people to even listen to the Slashdot party line when they're being hammered with opposing propraganda 24-7 is a hell of a challenge.
ANTRC power supplies rule... I have a 400W antec, powering two athlon MP1900s, five case fans, four hardrives (one 15K scsi) and two CDROm drives.. no problems whatsoever.
You most likely did not get any of this software for free. My University provides MS software to students free of charge, guess what? The University has a contract w/Mircosoft. All that software is paid for, by (you guessed it) our tuition.
Personally I'd rather they nix this program so that those of us who don't want to buy Microsofts crap aren't indirectly underwriting them.
Except that to get a confirmed paypall account you must provide a bank account (that is used for verification). That account has to be tracable to someone.
While obtaining a fake bank account is certainly feasable, it would require somewhat sophisticated crook. I think it's a little beyond the average Ebay bottom feeder.
I have a near fraud on ebay to the tune of $1500. Just keep on them and it will get resolved. Call you r credit card company and ask them to do a chargeback. My company (firstusa visa) did an immediate chargeback and indicated that it was up to the seller to prove he had shipped the items to me.
The chargeback will get Paypalls attention.
I then filed a fraud complaint on Ebay, requested the guys contact information and left daily phone mesages threating to pursue criminal charges (which I was serious about)....
in the end I got every damn cent back, so (in my experience at least) you can get fraudlant transactions corrected if you are patient and persistent.
I'm not taking a position one way or the other on gun control per se, but the above poster is right, just like technology laws gun control laws are written by people with very poor (at best "crash course") knowledge of the subject they're regulating.
That's a much more appropiate analogy then you intended, given that our drug policy is even more farcical than our IP laws.
Basically, if you play the game, be discrete. And if you get caught, there's nobody else to blame.
How about we blame a goverment unforcing immoral and unjust laws and a weak minded citizenship that does little to stop it? Silly me I tend to view the drug trade the same way I view "offensive art" if you don't like it stay away from it, and mind your own damn business.
Re:3d displays cannot work
on
3D LCD Display
·
· Score: 1
sry... I need a humor injection...
I thought you were serious the first time I read this.
....Going for more coffee to prevent more stupid mistakes.
Re:3d displays cannot work
on
3D LCD Display
·
· Score: 1
It's quite possible that you know something I don't, but I'm pretty skeptical of your explanation. First of all, my understanding was that depth perception was largly "calculated" by the degree of difference between the images from each eye.
Secondly consider the mechanism you're suggesting, that would mean that the human eye and brain would have to be able to determine the time lag between light arriving from say 5 and 50 meters away. Consider how absurdly small a difference in arrival time there will be, and the complex series of chemical and electrical signals required to use this information.
This is actually a fairly well documented phenomea known as recurrent isolated sleep paralysis. You're correct in you assertion of the chemical cause. During sleep a chemical (don't remember then name) is produced that parlysis skeletal muscles (to prevent acting out dreams).. sometime people start to reawaken before the effects haver worn off.
That said there does seem to be a correlation between RISP and reports of out of body experiences. While not pushing a "spiritual" agenda, OBEs have many aspects that resist a simple answer - so the RISP related symptoms are almost certainly not all of the picture.
Try doing a google search on recurrant isolated sleep paralysis.
Agreed. Thought to be fair, we've been attacked more than once. I still feel that the response is out of proportion to the incidents though. Yes 2000 some people died, yes it was terrible. Anyone care to compare deaths from terrorism to other sources that get almost NO public attention? More people drown every year than were killed in the WTC bombings, where's the legislative fiat against water?
I'm probably troll bating here, but what the hell.
The Declaration of Independence may outline principles but the Bill of Rights is that document that actually gurantees these freedoms. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is not addressed directly in the constitution.
You're right, loaning records are the property of the library, and forcing the library to release its private information with out a warrent is highly suspect. It trambles on the libraries right to be free from unreasonable searches.
Restricting the librarion from informing anyone that the search took place is also highly questionable.
Slashdot Mirror
What I WOULD like to see, is a law stating that anyone sponsering a law found to be in egregious violation of the bill of rights would be immedatly removed from office and permenantly banned from ever holding public office.
There was actually a legal case close to me (Pittsburgh) where an underage girl was arrested and charged with distributing child pornography after posting naked pictures of herself.
I believe the charges were dropped but I'm not certain.
This leads to a while (off topic) ugly serious of questions. Cases like the above were obviously not how child pornography laws were intended. My understanding is that the intention is to protect children from sexual predators exploiting them. How does the inscreasing ability of children to "publish" on their own, combined with earlier sexual activity affect this?
While it's idiotic, I certianly don't think that a 14 y/o should be criminally liable for a picture/video another 14 y/o sends him.
Thoughts?
In most areas the federal proscuter takes only a very small portion of cases. Some federal proscuters have a policy of only taking cases involving over a certain amount of contradband. Or (here's the dicey one) is some areas only cases the federal proscuter takes a special interest in .
In short if someone in power doesn't like you, you can get five years for that loose joint.
Note: This information if mostly from the "reefer madness article" that appeared in the Atlantic Monthly, it is several years out of date but is still accurate as far as I know.
- This is simply NOT true AT ALL. There are countries with FEWER restrictions on firearms that have much lower homicide rates than the US. Consider Switzerland, every male between 18 and 50 (or 60?) is required to take part in the military reserve. In order to increase response times, they have all their gear, including weapon and ammunition at their house. Now care to compare the homicide rate per capita in Switzerland to that of the US?
Easy access to weapons may be a factor in violence, but saying the problems with violence in the US are due to the availibility of weapons is a gross oversimplification.
I get around 20-30 Spam messages a day. I'd estimate that it takes me UNDER A MINUTE to delete them all.
Yes it's a nuisance, please move on
IIRC the idea that neutron bombs have almost no fireball is a myth. The neutron bomb was designed to take out Soviet Tank formations that would be relatively protected from the heat and blast effects of standard tactical nukes. It is intended as a theatre area tactical weapon.
Even for unshielded troops the lethal area for the blast/shockwave is still greater than the lethal area for radiation effects.
Anyone with more knowledge care to comment?
hmmm, could it be not that the Enron Exec should be punished more, but that the former criminal should be punished less? Think about it, the answer to unequal treatemnt isn't always to up the ante. BTW.. These two crimes are also not equivelent at all. Consider the risk posed by people from a robber brandashing a gun - no where in (most) white collar crimes is there that kind of immediate risk to people's lives.
I was with you until you referred the the steaming pile of feces that is the DMCA as "a great thing for technology"
The point remains that there is a BIG difference between deliberty causing someone harm and harm caused by irresponsible conduct. No one on the felony murder law page was arguing that Janet does not bear responsibility for the results of her irresponsible actions. They were arguing that punishing someone who is irresponsible with the same degree of severity as someone who is intentinally harmfull is unethical.
In most states a charge of first degree murder requires INTENT TO KILL, get the point here, the intent DOES MATTER. The law Jannet was prosecuted under failes to take that into account. As stated on the page, a charge of involuntary manslaughter would have been much more appropiate to these circumstances.
By the way, with regard to links between Iraq and terrorism, read the earlier CIA report, which stated that there was no significant evidence linking Iraq to groups like al quada (dammit I can't spell).
Iraq may be a threat for its own reasons, but don't make the mistake of lumping all our potiental enemies under one label.
I am NOT saying the the Democrats are not equally responsible for supporting the current fear and hysteria, but the Bush administration is behind an almost unprecedented expansion of executive authority, which began even before 911. I don't want to write a book here, but I am happy to back this up.
Their intention may not be to create a police state, but they are breaking down the normal checks and balences placed on the power of the executive branch - do you trust that everyone in power after king George will use their unchecked powers responsibly?
Yes, but not until the next election (obviously). Sadly, the general public is very uninformed about these issues so this kind of legislation is unlikely to be discussed in upcoming elections. See some of the comments from a Slashdot story last night about freedom of the press in the US. The mainstream newspapers are (for the most part) owned by the same companies that have bought this congress- critter, niche news sources are written off as fringe nutcases. Getting people to even listen to the Slashdot party line when they're being hammered with opposing propraganda 24-7 is a hell of a challenge.
ANTRC power supplies rule...
I have a 400W antec, powering two athlon MP1900s, five case fans, four hardrives (one 15K scsi) and two CDROm drives.. no problems whatsoever.
Personally I'd rather they nix this program so that those of us who don't want to buy Microsofts crap aren't indirectly underwriting them.
I'm not famialar with "daemon tools"... can someone point me in the right direction... this sounds very interesting. (as does blindread)
While obtaining a fake bank account is certainly feasable, it would require somewhat sophisticated crook. I think it's a little beyond the average Ebay bottom feeder.
You only cut off one ball and offer to let the seller pay you for the privledge of keeping the other one.
The chargeback will get Paypalls attention.
I then filed a fraud complaint on Ebay, requested the guys contact information and left daily phone mesages threating to pursue criminal charges (which I was serious about)....
in the end I got every damn cent back, so (in my experience at least) you can get fraudlant transactions corrected if you are patient and persistent.
I'm not taking a position one way or the other on gun control per se, but the above poster is right, just like technology laws gun control laws are written by people with very poor (at best "crash course") knowledge of the subject they're regulating.
Basically, if you play the game, be discrete. And if you get caught, there's nobody else to blame.
How about we blame a goverment unforcing immoral and unjust laws and a weak minded citizenship that does little to stop it? Silly me I tend to view the drug trade the same way I view "offensive art" if you don't like it stay away from it, and mind your own damn business.
Secondly consider the mechanism you're suggesting, that would mean that the human eye and brain would have to be able to determine the time lag between light arriving from say 5 and 50 meters away. Consider how absurdly small a difference in arrival time there will be, and the complex series of chemical and electrical signals required to use this information.
If I'm mistaken I'd love to hear more.
That said there does seem to be a correlation between RISP and reports of out of body experiences. While not pushing a "spiritual" agenda, OBEs have many aspects that resist a simple answer - so the RISP related symptoms are almost certainly not all of the picture.
Try doing a google search on recurrant isolated sleep paralysis.
Agreed. Thought to be fair, we've been attacked more than once. I still feel that the response is out of proportion to the incidents though. Yes 2000 some people died, yes it was terrible. Anyone care to compare deaths from terrorism to other sources that get almost NO public attention? More people drown every year than were killed in the WTC bombings, where's the legislative fiat against water?
You're right, loaning records are the property of the library, and forcing the library to release its private information with out a warrent is highly suspect. It trambles on the libraries right to be free from unreasonable searches.
Restricting the librarion from informing anyone that the search took place is also highly questionable.
Thanks for playing.