We just have completely weird notions on "porn". In the majority of US states you could have sex with Miley Cyrus perfectly legally. You snap a picture though (or hell even photoshop one apparently) and you're a dirty pedo that should be taken out back and shot.
It's only legal (or at least not prosecuted) to (have sex with a minor, but not snap photos) if you're also a minor. If you're over 18 and the other person is under 18 (in most or all states, I believe), it's illegal to snap nude photos or have sex with a minor.
While not applicable to this, other laws that deal with similar grey area of law allow for one party to define the crime where the perpetrator might not reasonably be able to determine the legality ahead of time.
So is there a valid defense that prosecution under such laws is ex post facto?
It's funny... I normally find myself loathing companies like Goldman Sachs for hyper-selfish capitalism, finding ways to get rich at taxpayer expense, etc.
But then, when I see industrial espionage by Russians, Chinese, Israelis, etc. against those very same corporations, a sense of nationalist anger makes me forget my anti-corporatist anger. Somehow I completely fail to have a sense of schadenfreude for the corporations that I normally hate, and I don't know why.
Actually, it would have to be 65C02 or better. You couldn't do "ldx #$FF" on a 6502, you had to do "lda #$FF" and then "tax" (transfer A to X). The ability to load immediate into the X or Y registers was added on the 65C02. And, don't quote my on this, but I think the 7800 predated the 65816, so I suspect 65C02 is the right answer...
Overall, I think this is a mistake on Blizzard's part. There *are* those of us who still do actual physical lan parties
I guess that's the real question, though: by dropping LAN support, exactly how much revenue will they miss by alienating people like you, vs. revenue gained by whatever they have in mind.
No, this is no more than another reach where states are trying to end run the commerce clause which has prevented them from successfully taxing out of state mail order purchases.
Well, at least it's a form of perverse justice, since the federal govt. uses the commerce clause to get around basically every right reserved for the states.
Maybe she would have some luck trying to tack on a charge of identity theft, for the principal submitting the 'editorial' using her name? It seems increasingly easy to throw that type of charge at someone these days. Or maybe some type of fraud? If the statute of limitations hasn't run out. Of course, IANAL. I hope at the least the school board reviewed the actions of the principal.
Can a person be tried twice for the same physical act, when the two trials are for violations of different laws?
Collectively, we probably have as much / more money to throw into the political system as corporate interests.
Perhaps it's this: In order to get $50M in lobbying money from the tobacco industry, you only have to get 4-5 entities (the tobacco companies) to pitch in.
To get $50M in lobbying money for the EFF would require organizing a bigger fund-drive than we've ever tried.
"While the White House has invited the nation to Join the National Online Discussion on Health Care Reform, it is currently only accepting 20-30 second YouTube video responses â" text comments have been disabled.
Am I the only person who's concerned that the Whitehouse has been allowed to be the moderator of such discussions?
After all, the administration has a political agenda, and therefore an incentive to bias the discussions on any particular topic of debate. Deciding details such as the length and form of submissions can be a powerful device for controlling the topic and direction of debate. At that point, it's a rather useless vehicle for arguing a side that the administration doesn't want advanced.
I often hear (on NPR, usually) politicians calling for a "national discussion" or a "national debate" on some topic.
Exactly what is a "national discussion/debate"?
It seems to me like things usually work out this way: news organizations cover some topic, congress and the President start discussing it, lobbyists come onto the scene, and in the end the Congress either (a) sells us out to lobbyists, or (b) makes a completely irrational piece of legislation.
So is calling for a "national discussion/debate" really just an attempt to dress, as democratic, a decision which the common citizen has no capacity to influence? That is, like what happens with so-called "town-hall meetings"?
It sounds to me like the administration is looking for raw material they can put into commercials to run in districts that oppose Obama's plans.
I.e,. this might be a huge casting call in disguise.
I'm fairly skeptical these days when Obama says he wants to involve the general population in a discussion. His modus operandi became evident when he ignored the highly voted Internet town hall topic of legalizing marijuana. It appears that at least sometimes, he's only pretending to take the general citizenry's views into account, even when he's saying otherwise.
Isn't the community consensus that every publicly accessible URL points to content that the community is free to link to and view at will?
That is: if you post a document on a web server, then you're granting the whole world the same rights to the material that you would be if you posted that material on a billboard sign next to the highway.
Why can't judges see that?
Why do some judges assume that the common understanding of a URL needs to change, rather than just having the newspapers stop supporting publicly accessible URLs to content they want protected???
This gets into the contracts and the "data rights" agreements. For example, there are a few different contracts that can be set up even when a government pays a company to develop an application.
Doe the FOIA trump a government's restrictive licensing of data of this kind?
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
Bad rule these days. Tons of what the Bush administration did could have been attributed to stupidity (bad WMD information, exposing Valerie Plame, etc.) But in retrospect much of it seems to have been malice.
Slashdot Mirror
We just have completely weird notions on "porn". In the majority of US states you could have sex with Miley Cyrus perfectly legally. You snap a picture though (or hell even photoshop one apparently) and you're a dirty pedo that should be taken out back and shot.
It's only legal (or at least not prosecuted) to (have sex with a minor, but not snap photos) if you're also a minor. If you're over 18 and the other person is under 18 (in most or all states, I believe), it's illegal to snap nude photos or have sex with a minor.
So is there a valid defense that prosecution under such laws is ex post facto?
Math geeks are deathly afraid of porn regulation.
It's funny... I normally find myself loathing companies like Goldman Sachs for hyper-selfish capitalism, finding ways to get rich at taxpayer expense, etc.
But then, when I see industrial espionage by Russians, Chinese, Israelis, etc. against those very same corporations, a sense of nationalist anger makes me forget my anti-corporatist anger. Somehow I completely fail to have a sense of schadenfreude for the corporations that I normally hate, and I don't know why.
Being human is strange.
I like compilers.
I like cake.
Mmmm... chocolate compilers...
Looks like 6502.
Actually, it would have to be 65C02 or better. You couldn't do "ldx #$FF" on a 6502, you had to do "lda #$FF" and then "tax" (transfer A to X). The ability to load immediate into the X or Y registers was added on the 65C02. And, don't quote my on this, but I think the 7800 predated the 65816, so I suspect 65C02 is the right answer...
I like compilers.
If you have AIDS you're probably better-educated about your syndrome than your average bear.
Sssh, or the Democrats will demand that all bear cubs and human children get an equal education.
Damn, and I thought husbands were already whipped.
Overall, I think this is a mistake on Blizzard's part. There *are* those of us who still do actual physical lan parties
I guess that's the real question, though: by dropping LAN support, exactly how much revenue will they miss by alienating people like you, vs. revenue gained by whatever they have in mind.
Well, at least it's a form of perverse justice, since the federal govt. uses the commerce clause to get around basically every right reserved for the states.
I don't yet know what kind of porn this enables. I just know that I want it.
Maybe she would have some luck trying to tack on a charge of identity theft, for the principal submitting the 'editorial' using her name? It seems increasingly easy to throw that type of charge at someone these days.
Or maybe some type of fraud? If the statute of limitations hasn't run out. Of course, IANAL. I hope at the least the school board reviewed the actions of the principal.
Can a person be tried twice for the same physical act, when the two trials are for violations of different laws?
I'm a computer-engineer-turned-patent-attorney.
My undergraduate degree was filled with (relatively) clearly-defined and immutable rules of logic and physics.
Law school was the polar opposite.
Wow, so you've specialized in taking away our freedoms. Cheers, mate.
Collectively, we probably have as much / more money to throw into the political system as corporate interests.
Perhaps it's this: In order to get $50M in lobbying money from the tobacco industry, you only have to get 4-5 entities (the tobacco companies) to pitch in.
To get $50M in lobbying money for the EFF would require organizing a bigger fund-drive than we've ever tried.
Sadly, McDonald's has trademarked "I'm lovin' it" as part of a recent advertising campaign.
I'm afraid your friend will have had to say something else in future tellings of your story.
He was black?
Am I the only person who's concerned that the Whitehouse has been allowed to be the moderator of such discussions?
After all, the administration has a political agenda, and therefore an incentive to bias the discussions on any particular topic of debate. Deciding details such as the length and form of submissions can be a powerful device for controlling the topic and direction of debate. At that point, it's a rather useless vehicle for arguing a side that the administration doesn't want advanced.
I often hear (on NPR, usually) politicians calling for a "national discussion" or a "national debate" on some topic.
Exactly what is a "national discussion/debate"?
It seems to me like things usually work out this way: news organizations cover some topic, congress and the President start discussing it, lobbyists come onto the scene, and in the end the Congress either (a) sells us out to lobbyists, or (b) makes a completely irrational piece of legislation.
So is calling for a "national discussion/debate" really just an attempt to dress, as democratic, a decision which the common citizen has no capacity to influence? That is, like what happens with so-called "town-hall meetings"?
It sounds to me like the administration is looking for raw material they can put into commercials to run in districts that oppose Obama's plans.
I.e,. this might be a huge casting call in disguise.
I'm fairly skeptical these days when Obama says he wants to involve the general population in a discussion. His modus operandi became evident when he ignored the highly voted Internet town hall topic of legalizing marijuana. It appears that at least sometimes, he's only pretending to take the general citizenry's views into account, even when he's saying otherwise.
Isn't the community consensus that every publicly accessible URL points to content that the community is free to link to and view at will?
That is: if you post a document on a web server, then you're granting the whole world the same rights to the material that you would be if you posted that material on a billboard sign next to the highway.
Why can't judges see that?
Why do some judges assume that the common understanding of a URL needs to change, rather than just having the newspapers stop supporting publicly accessible URLs to content they want protected???
Doe the FOIA trump a government's restrictive licensing of data of this kind?
Well damn, if that's not a justification for better funding for the techies, I don't know what is.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
Bad rule these days. Tons of what the Bush administration did could have been attributed to stupidity (bad WMD information, exposing Valerie Plame, etc.) But in retrospect much of it seems to have been malice.
IT'S THE MOON. Jesus.
You think Jesus didn't know that???
...sees this summary and thinks ... DUP?
Yup.