For a very weak definition of "permanent" (Mir). The ISS, on the other hand, is an international effort, but even it is looking decicdedly impermanent these days.
No it isn't. If a judge signs a warrant to search your house, you have no right to prevent it. If you attempt this, you'll very quickly find yourself confined in the backseat of a police cruiser.
Of course you can't prevent it, but you don't have to aid in it. You just have to not interfere. Trying to forcefully prevent law officers from carrying out their lawful duties is a very different thing from declining to run around your house helping them and saying "did you see this?", "how about this?" and telling them as they are about to leave "look you missed this; if you turn over this fishbowl you'll see a secret message taped to the bottom."
Your 5th amendment right applies to the contents of your own mind. You cannot be forced to take an oath and then choose between perjury or confession. But if the police, executing a valid search warrant, say, "Give me the key to the safe," and they know you have the key, you'd be advised to give it to them.
Yes, you'll be advised to give the key to the safe to them so they don't crack the safe and damage it to get inside, or seize the whole thing and call a crew to rip it out of the floor and wheel it away. Not because you have to actively help them do their job. The same reason you open the front door when they say "This is the police and we have a warrant to search the premises." They are GOING to come in, but you don't have to have your front door damaged in the process.
Actually, if they are feeling charitable, they will just search the premises until they find the key to the safe.
The Fifth Amendment does not JUST apply to testimony under oath. That is what the Miranda rights are all about. You have a general right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself. Not in casual talks with the police, not in a police interrogation, and not in court. You have the right not to even open your mouth to the police. The right to remain silent, period.
A person does not have a right to destroy, withhold, or falsify evidence of their wrongdoing with the intent of stymieing investigators. That's obstruction of justice.
If you mean a person does not have the right to withhold evidence of THEIR OWN wrongdoing, that is an absurdity. The reason for the relevant clause in the Fifth Amendment is PRECISELY to protect people against being compelled to admit anything. Why do you think you can't even be compelled to take the stand in your own criminal trial? Do you really think the cops can say "go find the gun we know you used in an illegal act, go dig it up from wherever you buried it and give it to us" and try to compel you to do so?
Destroy, falsify - yeah, that's obstruction. Withhold - that's just not doing their job for them. There is a difference.
What you don't have the right to do is withhold - WHEN ASKED - evidence of SOMEONE ELSE'S wrongdoing (spousal exemption aside). That indeed would be obstruction of justice.
The judge's ruling in this case is perfectly reasonable, and in conformance with the US Constitution and US law.
The HELL it is. Let me repeat that. The HELL it is.
The Fifth Amendment says in its entirety, and I quote: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." [applicable section emphasized]
It means what it says. You can get any number of lawyers to argue about what it means, but it won't change what it means. It is written in plain language specifically so that anyone of average intelligence can clearly understand it.
That encrypted data is a communication FROM yourself TO yourself, and not to anyone else. The State is perfectly empowered to try to find that data (check) and to try to figure out how to decrypt it (oops) and figure out what it means and whom in actual fact it may or may not incriminate, but they cannot compel me to be a witness against myself by helping them to do so. Maybe I have a tattoo on my hand, and maybe it means something; maybe it could even aid in or contribute to incriminating me in some illegal act, but they can ask me what it means until they're blue in the face and I don't have to tell them. Let them figure it out on their own. No can do? Sorry, Charlie.
Any lawyer who tells me I have to hand over that PGP key is INSTANTLY FIRED.
Try including the context. He wasn't talking about any old criticism. The actual quote:
"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'" Paul said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America." "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."
Are there any FTP programs left that don't know SFTP?
Is that a serious question? If so, how about/usr/bin/ftp just for starters? And I imagine c:\windows\system32\ftp.exe as well, though I don't use toy operating systems myself. Those are by far the most common ftp clients.
The big difference between nuclear power and hydro power in terms of safety is that it is always possible to avoid the danger in the latter case. Just don't build within a couple hundred miles downstream of one.... (On the other hand, I suppose you could make the same argument about living downwind from a nuke plant....)
Not really; not so much. The topography of the earth away from active volcanos is pretty stable. You know where the water from a burst dam is going to go; with zero chance that it could ever go the opposite direction. But winds change all the time. You can have a wind in a diametrically opposite direction from where it was just hours ago.
Show me one case where a melted core traveled 500 m into the earth. One. There isn't any. At Chernobyl there is a big blob of it that traveled a few meters within the building and froze before burning through the concrete floor. At three mile island it didn't leave containment. Give the China syndrome a rest. It ain't real. There are enough REAL dangers without making shit up.
''Given the harsh environment that we had to operate, we did quite well - it's a first step,'' Mr Matsumoto said. ''But we could not spot any signs of fuel, unfortunately.''
Why not? The tyrant Abraham Lincoln had no problem openly and arrogantly suspending habeas corpus, and simply scoffed at judges who pointed out that it was an unconstitutional act.
Everybody agrees that we need to battle online piracy
Dear Mr. Morris: like most proclamations beginning "everybody agrees," this statement is erroneous.
We don't run red lights because we don't want traffic chaos.
No, Mr. Morris. I don't run red lights because I don't want to DIE. I couldn't care less about traffic chaos as long as it doesn't impede MY progress and safety.
You are not merely wrong, but do not understand the basis of the Constitution. The Constitution exists to PROHIBIT the Federal government doing ANYTHING that it doesn't SPECIFICALLY empower it to do. You don't have to find a place in the Constitution where it says the Federal government CANNOT do X. You only have to establish that nothing in it that says it CAN do X.
The relevant empowering section in this case reads:
"The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
It means what it says. A law specifies how long copyright lasts - the time MUST be limited. Then when the copyright runs out, the work passes into the public domain. There is no Constitutional basis for then magically re-instituting copyright after it has run out, by passing some new law after this event which WOULD HAVE resulted in a longer period of copyright, had the new law existed at the time the work was originally published.
In fact the Constitution specifically says "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." The definition of Ex Post Facto is "Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively."
I realize that the Constitution is no longer used as anything more than toilet paper nowadays. BUT SOME OF US NOTICE. Yes, we notice.
I suggest clicking "Parent" to see who I am responding to. It's certainly not you. And I understand perfectly that it is hard to follow threads. This presentation of threads on/. is pathetic. It used to be far better. You know, when slashdot's performance was actually fine before they ruined it.
Given that corruption sets in progressively over time, that the newly elected are as a rule the least corrupt and the most responsive to the electorate, and the establishment lifers are the most corrupt and the least responsive to the electorate...
... Given all this, I ask you, what is wrong with kicking the fucking bastards out every year?
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. I mean, lack of minerals might kill you if you NEVER ATE FOOD which contains far more minerals than any drinking water.
For a very weak definition of "permanent" (Mir). The ISS, on the other hand, is an international effort, but even it is looking decicdedly impermanent these days.
And was just as big a tyrant.
Verifiable reference or it's not a quote.
Just make a fake badge good enough to pass a quick look, and switch 'em.
Of course you can't prevent it, but you don't have to aid in it. You just have to not interfere. Trying to forcefully prevent law officers from carrying out their lawful duties is a very different thing from declining to run around your house helping them and saying "did you see this?", "how about this?" and telling them as they are about to leave "look you missed this; if you turn over this fishbowl you'll see a secret message taped to the bottom."
Yes, you'll be advised to give the key to the safe to them so they don't crack the safe and damage it to get inside, or seize the whole thing and call a crew to rip it out of the floor and wheel it away. Not because you have to actively help them do their job. The same reason you open the front door when they say "This is the police and we have a warrant to search the premises." They are GOING to come in, but you don't have to have your front door damaged in the process.
Actually, if they are feeling charitable, they will just search the premises until they find the key to the safe.
The Fifth Amendment does not JUST apply to testimony under oath. That is what the Miranda rights are all about. You have a general right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself. Not in casual talks with the police, not in a police interrogation, and not in court. You have the right not to even open your mouth to the police. The right to remain silent, period.
If you mean a person does not have the right to withhold evidence of THEIR OWN wrongdoing, that is an absurdity. The reason for the relevant clause in the Fifth Amendment is PRECISELY to protect people against being compelled to admit anything. Why do you think you can't even be compelled to take the stand in your own criminal trial? Do you really think the cops can say "go find the gun we know you used in an illegal act, go dig it up from wherever you buried it and give it to us" and try to compel you to do so?
Destroy, falsify - yeah, that's obstruction. Withhold - that's just not doing their job for them. There is a difference.
What you don't have the right to do is withhold - WHEN ASKED - evidence of SOMEONE ELSE'S wrongdoing (spousal exemption aside). That indeed would be obstruction of justice.
The HELL it is. Let me repeat that. The HELL it is.
The Fifth Amendment says in its entirety, and I quote: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." [applicable section emphasized]
It means what it says. You can get any number of lawyers to argue about what it means, but it won't change what it means. It is written in plain language specifically so that anyone of average intelligence can clearly understand it.
That encrypted data is a communication FROM yourself TO yourself, and not to anyone else. The State is perfectly empowered to try to find that data (check) and to try to figure out how to decrypt it (oops) and figure out what it means and whom in actual fact it may or may not incriminate, but they cannot compel me to be a witness against myself by helping them to do so. Maybe I have a tattoo on my hand, and maybe it means something; maybe it could even aid in or contribute to incriminating me in some illegal act, but they can ask me what it means until they're blue in the face and I don't have to tell them. Let them figure it out on their own. No can do? Sorry, Charlie.
Any lawyer who tells me I have to hand over that PGP key is INSTANTLY FIRED.
You're too easy. That's the true level of the DEPRAVITY of those who enacted these laws.
Try including the context. He wasn't talking about any old criticism. The actual quote:
"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'" Paul said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America." "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."
Is that a serious question? If so, how about /usr/bin/ftp just for starters? And I imagine c:\windows\system32\ftp.exe as well, though I don't use toy operating systems myself. Those are by far the most common ftp clients.
Not really; not so much. The topography of the earth away from active volcanos is pretty stable. You know where the water from a burst dam is going to go; with zero chance that it could ever go the opposite direction. But winds change all the time. You can have a wind in a diametrically opposite direction from where it was just hours ago.
Show me one case where a melted core traveled 500 m into the earth. One. There isn't any. At Chernobyl there is a big blob of it that traveled a few meters within the building and froze before burning through the concrete floor. At three mile island it didn't leave containment. Give the China syndrome a rest. It ain't real. There are enough REAL dangers without making shit up.
''Given the harsh environment that we had to operate, we did quite well - it's a first step,'' Mr Matsumoto said. ''But we could not spot any signs of fuel, unfortunately.''
The citizens who stupidly elect those who perpetrate this corrupt monstrosity are ultimately to blame. They will be judged harshly by history.
Why not? The tyrant Abraham Lincoln had no problem openly and arrogantly suspending habeas corpus, and simply scoffed at judges who pointed out that it was an unconstitutional act.
Dear Mr. Morris: like most proclamations beginning "everybody agrees," this statement is erroneous.
No, Mr. Morris. I don't run red lights because I don't want to DIE. I couldn't care less about traffic chaos as long as it doesn't impede MY progress and safety.
Or a male of Asian heritage. But with the name Schmitz it doesn't appear so.
Colorado in the 1850s: perhaps one of the earliest blatant examples of corrupt conniving between big government and big business.
I'm curious. Just what kind of money making do you consider "illegitimate"?
You are not merely wrong, but do not understand the basis of the Constitution. The Constitution exists to PROHIBIT the Federal government doing ANYTHING that it doesn't SPECIFICALLY empower it to do. You don't have to find a place in the Constitution where it says the Federal government CANNOT do X. You only have to establish that nothing in it that says it CAN do X.
The relevant empowering section in this case reads:
"The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
It means what it says. A law specifies how long copyright lasts - the time MUST be limited. Then when the copyright runs out, the work passes into the public domain. There is no Constitutional basis for then magically re-instituting copyright after it has run out, by passing some new law after this event which WOULD HAVE resulted in a longer period of copyright, had the new law existed at the time the work was originally published.
In fact the Constitution specifically says "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." The definition of Ex Post Facto is "Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively."
I realize that the Constitution is no longer used as anything more than toilet paper nowadays. BUT SOME OF US NOTICE. Yes, we notice.
You said and I quote "...or DVI monitor, which is the same thing, except you probably won't be able to do HDCP", which is an inaccurate statement.
I suggest clicking "Parent" to see who I am responding to. It's certainly not you. And I understand perfectly that it is hard to follow threads. This presentation of threads on /. is pathetic. It used to be far better. You know, when slashdot's performance was actually fine before they ruined it.
Given that corruption sets in progressively over time, that the newly elected are as a rule the least corrupt and the most responsive to the electorate, and the establishment lifers are the most corrupt and the least responsive to the electorate ...
Oh, you are SO insightful. NOT.