Only there's no such thing as generic IP, and there's no such thing as "IP theft", and in any event, he's not suing over THAT, he's suing over the trademark "CrunchPad", which they don't appear to be using.
Doesn't sound different? A rocket or an ion thruster or a theoretical fission of fusion or antimatter thruster works by shooting shit out the back at low-to-high speeds, making you shoot forwards. In the air, you can use a big propeller / fan to push the air around you backwards at high speeds. You use fuel up spinning those fans, but its way more efficient fuel wise than just squirting diesel out the back with a pump. But of course, with no air to push around, you can't use a turbofan in space. This newish idea is that you can push against the virtual particles in a vacuum using this or that technique, and essentially get a space propeller. Will it get to 3000-9000 s specific impulse like the ion thrusters? Maybe not. But right now, all it has to do is beat 500 s from a rocket thruster, but still scale high enough to outdo an ion thruster, which, though highly efficient, is extremely large and produces an extremely tiny amount of thrust. And maybe it'll only be useful until all those fancy fusion thrusters scientists are making up become a reality...but even then, a reactionless maneuvering thruster would be much safer for use in docking maneuvers, than say, plasma plumes shooting out at relativistic speeds? Not as useful at fighting of a Kzin ambush though, so give and take I suppose.
What legal principle allows a judge to void somebody's copyright because he doesn't like the terms of their license? If Microsoft successfully argued that they used GPL code because they thought the license was invalid, they just successfully argued that they committed willful copyright infringement by using code they, in good faith, believed they did not have a license to use.
I disagree, people already doubt Math and Physics. Honest to goodness people who reject math, saying it's just a theory, there's no such thing as 1 or 2 so 1+1=2 is meaningless babble and doesn't prove anything. They're the kind of people you see on TV, claiming to be actual scientists, saying that since either the LHC will destroy the world, or it won't, it's a 50% chance, only two options, so 50/50. There are a lot, A LOT of people who think that there's no such thing as probability, either. They say that since God designed our fates, everything meant to happen has a 100% chance, and everything else has a 0% chance. If I roll a die, and cover it up and look, maybe it says 3. So if I ask you, who doesn't see the number, what the chances are it's 3, it's 100%, because it is a 3. The fact that you can't see it can't change reality, they say!
They kept them. But they're earmarked "To give back once we get permission to use this song, if they ever call and we don't just hang up on them for some reason" so they reason it's perfectly legal.
Except that we do have statutory damages for willful copyright infringement. They admit they knew they didn't have the rights, and that they made $50 million off selling things they were fully aware they had zero rights to. In fact, this is a class action, over the fact that they have used a total of THREE MILLION SONGS WITHOUT PERMISSION. The law is clear, $20,000 per instance of copyright infringement. You're right, the Canadian courts haven't tested the legal principal that copyright infringement laws really mean per copy, not per copyrighted song that you misappropriate. If Canadian courts HAD approved such an absurd notion, then the CRIA members would be faction quadrillions in damages, where each CD they sold would mean them owing $20,000 per song, PER CD. Instead, it's limited to per song.
You need to have clear intent of raping and/or abducting a person that, as far as you know, IS a child (under 14). That is, if you chat up a chick online and ask her over for a quickie, you are in the clear even if she is 10, unless you knew she was 10, or had good cause to believe so. If on the other hand, you followed through after meeting in person, then your defense gets a whole shit load more difficult;) To be clear, the law requires intent to commit the crime. The Supreme Court threw out the argument that the only way to prove intent is if the person follows through. This is clearly the right call, otherwise lots of things couldn't be crimes... "Yeah I pulled a knife on somebody said said 'Time to die for what you did to me!' but I never actually swung it before he kicked me in the balls and ran for it, how can you PROVE INTENT!?!?!?! Just because I clearly fucking did to anybody with any common sense, and also had motive because he stole my wife!? What an absurd law, it basically criminalizes everything, you can't prove a negative, how can YOU prove you didn't intent to murder him, you can't! You should all be arrested too!"
It's always required to establish Mens Rea. (You might argue that criminal negligence has no intent to cause harm, but you do have to take conspicuously negligent action. The intent is over the actions, not the results). The judge did not overturn the requirement that you have criminal intent. He overturned the requirement that you actually commit the crime as the only way of demonstrating said intent. That is, you ask a 13 year old to come over for sex, you broke the law. The jury was instructed that until he has sex with her, he has not broken the law. The Supreme Court threw that out and said no, the Crown only need prove that he intended to, not that he succeeded. That is, they only need to prove intent, the actual topics of conversation don't have to be nefarious. That is, if you hop onto a twilight board and chat up xxxBella94xxx and tell her how you like Twilight, you are fine. Now if you track her down later and try to grab her, then you can be charged with child luring also, even though you never said anything dirty to her. Because they still need to prove intent! On the other hand, the other half of the ruling is that the accused needn't actually commit the crime they were intent upon for the luring charge to stick. So if you offer a child tickets to New Moon and ask her to come over to your place to get them, you can be charged with child luring even if you don't actual grab her because the police arrest you first. Because you had ill intent. Or maybe not? That's the Jury's god damn job. The law isn't a machine where you put a person in, and it says "Guilty". The Jury decides the intent of the person. If you said you asked a 12 year old girl over just so you could give her some free movie tickets, and never meant to rape her, I think you'd have to be incredibly persuasive! If, on the other hand, the only evidence against you was that you were talking to her about your favorite Twilight character, there's no way in hell I'd convict, and I'd write the Office of the Attorney General about the gross incompetence of the Crown Attorney.
Retrials are allowed if there were substantial mistakes made during the trial. In this case, the judge gave incorrect jury instruction with regards to the meaning of the law. Specifically, he told them that because the accused didn't actually have sex with a 12 year old, they had to find him not guilty, since without the act, there was no way to prove that he intended to follow through on his stated desire to have sex with her.
If you don't know, there is no Mens Rea, you cannot be convicted. If you ask an 18 year old on craigslist to meet for sex, it's not illegal if a 13 year old posted it, because you have no way of knowing at all. Now, if you actually have sex with her, she better look damn old so you can convince a jury you thought she looked 18!
Yes, if you hop on WoW and tell a 13* year old girl you want to meet to have sex, you can be arrested in Canada. If you tell her you like drinking, you're fine. You have to have an inappropriate conversation with the purpose of facilitating a future crime. If you're telling this 13 year old girl you want to take her drinking, yeah, that's illegal, you're facilitating breaking a law. In this case, the defense tried to argue that although he expressed an interest in doing so, since he took no overt action to put this desire into action, he didn't break the law. That is, since the law says the conversation is to facilitate a crime, you haven't broken this law until you try to break the law you were "facilitating" the breaking of. In this instance, he was having cyber sex with a 12 year old, which though icky, isn't illegal. However, he told her he wants to do it for real some day. He got arrested, and tried to argue that those are just words, and they can't prove he intended to go through with it, because he never made concrete arrangements. So he was found not guilty. The Supreme Court overturned this conviction, because that was incorrect jury instruction. The law requires only that you have a conversation with a child in order to facilitate committing a crime involving that child. Unlike conspiracy, no overt act is required outside the communication. He said he wants to have sex in person some day. The idea that if you're trying to meet a 12 year old for sex, it's not illegal until you set a specific date is absurd. If a parent walks in and sees this in the chat window, the guy is A OK law-wise, unless the parent lets him keep going and sets a specific time and place? I would pull the plug ASAP and call the police, and be deeply offended that he walks because I caught him trying to rape my 13 year old daughter before he set a specific place to meet her!
Scream all you want about a slippery slope, there is no slippery slope here. The law wasn't broadened. It still requires communicating an intent to break the law. What it does is throw out the idea that you need to make an overt physical act to fulfill those plans. The guy told a 12 year old he wants to have sex with her. He then tried to argue it was just empty talk, he would never really do it, no sir, cybersex with a 12 year old is enough for him. Maybe you believe him. That's fine. It actually is a fairly reasonable argument. Lots of married men browse adult dating sites and craigslist etc, but few of them ever intend to go through with it. The internet is full of people who get off to a variety of unhealthy fetishes, but probably have no intent of having a dominatrix cut their limbs off, or make them eat excrement, but still say how much they want it online. However, that's up to the jury to decide. They were told it doesn't matter his intent because he never made concrete plans. The Supreme Court said that's incorrect instruction, so now he gets a new trial. If he convinces the jury that he had no intent, he's free to go. And he expressed intent, so that will be hard for him to prove, he has to prove he wasn't serious, and its hard to convince a jury you weren't serious, when you were certainly serious about having cybersex with a girl you thought was 13 (she was really 12 but it IS about what you thought, not about what was real).
* You may think I chose 13 instead of 17 to make your arguments look worse. However, I did not. You say a child is LEGALLY somebody under 18, but you are mistaken, my good man. That's a minor. A child, and this law is about children, not minors, is under 14 (in Canada anyway). So, while I may have appeared to be making a strawman argument, 13 is actually the oldest possible person which this law applies to. Were you telling your 14 year old buddy on WoW, not your 13 year old buddy, that you want to take him drinking, you'd actually have to do so before you broke the law. Anyways, you can see I barely called you any names, so Canadians ARE nice, and I read TFA and the ruling before talking about it, so we're also sensible;) Also, "Whaddya mean, you people eh?"
Canada's are called "Crown Attorney," "Attorney for the Crown," and such like. If they're in Federal Court, "Federal" is tacked on to their title. In Canada, all criminal law is the responsibility of the Federal Government in right of the Crown. That being said, the administration of said law is left up to the provinces, so although they do not get to set the law, they are the ones who run the courts. The exception being criminal cases involving laws that are not part of the criminal code, such as tax evasion and drugs, which are reserved for the Federal courts. (I imagine because when the delegation of power was written up, nobody imagined there would be criminal laws outside of the criminal code!)
Government lawyers who represent the government in non-criminal cases, such as Provincial and municipal laws, are called "General Counsel", and the term "Crown Counsel" can refer to either.
In Ontario it works just about exactly like the US system, where each District has exactly one Crown Attorney, and if he/she needs help, Assistant Crown Attorneys are hired. In other provinces, it works in a variety of ways. Unlike in the USA, they are not elected, but appointed by the Attorney General, so they don't tend to grandstand and try to win votes with highly publicized cases, so there is less of a risk of a Crown Attorney running wild with these "Child Luring" cases to make a name for himself. Though, as political appointments, they may feel some compulsion to toe the party line, I suppose.
The FBI bait sites are awesome, because they don't care how downloaded the image, just that you made the request. So, people have found out what the bait images are, apparently, and like to "FBI Roll" people by either linking to them directly, or even better, putting them as a 1x1 image hidden somewhere on an innocuous page. That way you never even see it, but it's in your browser cache now, so when the FBI comes knocking after your download, it'll be there. Somebody needs to step this program up a notch, and start FBI rolling every major newscaster, reporter, media executive, and politician (big and small). Until that happens, nobody gives a shit. Nobody cares that some innocent guy goes to jail for 3.5 years and can never get a job ever again and dies homeless, nobody cares in the slightest. Nobody even cares when a 17 year old girl gets 10 years for taking a pic of her tits and sending it to her boyfriend. Because she's a pedophile, it says so right here in the charges, anybody defending her is also a pedophile. And in fact, since she's underage, anybody defending her is a DOUBLE pedophile. You can imagine, a double pedophile is not something you want to be. That's right, the war on child porn is so bad, people won't even care about a white, privileged, teenage girl! I think you'd have to get every last person in the house and senate indited at once, because if you even only got half of them, the other half would turn on them like rabid wolves, cheering and applauding that the bait system works.
It's funny that with all your impotent rage over this poor blackmailer's privacy being violated, you don't seem to give, as you say, 0.1 of 1% of a shit about how he violated the woman's right to privacy, and her son's right to privacy. Nosir, they have no such right to privacy. Only the internet is private, and you can say ANYTHING and threaten ANYTHING against ANYBODY and your right to hide is sacrosanct. But your address, your phone number, where you go to school, none of that shit is private, information wants to be free, we have a GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO KNOW ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING (except, as you've established, IP addresses).
I guess I don't do any real work then, because if it's not an installer, it doesn't need to be run as administrator for me. I've never seen software that does! And even with installers, most of them are smart enough that they don't "need" to be run as an administrator unless you want to install it for all users, as opposed to just in your home directory.
That's how it works, except that MS apps aren't treated any differently than third party apps. There's System and Software (And Security and SAM and Users) and they're all separate files, treated as subkeys. And each user also has their own mini-registry they can be written to and read from without needing escalated privileges. Unfortunately, most Windows settings go in Software/Microsoft/Windows, when arguably, they should go in System/Settings or something along those lines. On the other hand, both System and Software require Administrator privileges to access...anyways, the boot process IS free from corruption. It's no different than Linux...if you have corrupted files, X11 might not load, but that didn't ruin your boot...if you don't know what you're doing without a GUI, you're just as hooped, but don't act like your system can no longer boot. Explorer went into failsafe mode, which is way better than it bluescreening.
Well, PETA's animal shelters euthanize via lethal injection, often on the van ride back to the shelter, so they can dump the body illegally in somebody else's dumpster, and not have to worry about disposal costs, either. So I guess they'd just do that?
As I recall, Google pulled the video within an hour of being notified it was even posted, and identified for police the IP address of the poster, allowing them to catch the actual bullies. The prosecutor is hoping to springboard into real politics by making a name for himself as the man who takes on big evil corporations, and the fact that they did everything right, and broke now laws, and cooperated with police extremely promptly, none of that matters.
How can you act like he's against capitalism, then suggest a library, the most obvious assault on the free market by big government Marxists of them all! Authors worked hard cranking out that precious precious IP, and publishers worked hard taking all that IP for themselves. And now a government funded piracy mill thinks they can just give them away for free? It's illegal to lend music or software, but somehow it's ok to lend books!? (It being legal to lend movies is less outrageous, since Blockbuster is using this immunity for capitalism)! I once went into a library and a woman was reading a book to dozens of children. And was she paying royalties? NO. She was robbing the author blind, making an unauthorized public performance of his work, STEALING his right to chose how his work is presented, and not even paying for it! In Europe, those dirty libraries are forced to pay royalties each time a book is taken out. It's the law, the EU forces member nations to comply with this and outlaw lending, and imposes severe sanctions on member nations that allow evil libraries to operate within their borders. In Britain authors are only paid 2p (two pence, or pennies) and are furious, demanding far far far more royalties per loan. They are also capped at 6000 pounds per annum (total, over all works and all libraries), also sparking harsh criticism of the British government. Pay caps! Preposterous. If an author has 30,000 readers in a year, they're capped out, and we shouldn't reward them for writing new books?!
Sorry for getting off topic, but libraries really boil my blood! The USA is one of the last first world nations to allow these copyright infringement mills to operate LEGALLY, and it's a travesty. And even those that have rightly outlawed this barbaric anachronistic practice, just because "We've always had libraries", are still ripping off hard working authors, paying then cents on the dollar for their hard work!
Actually, that's caused by causality combined with relativity. Relativity is just relativity. You can send things faster than light. However, relativity says that is equivalent to them traveling back in time. The reason for that is that, for two reference frames to truly be equal, it can't be possible to agree on which of two events happened first for all cases. If you allow FTL communications, then this implies that the message must go back in time. The example is simple. Imagine you're sitting somewhere in deep space. Meanwhile, some asshole named Bob cruises straight by you at 99% the speed of light. Due to relativity, he sees you scream by him just as fast in the other direction. Lets say that Earth is a million light years away from you, relative to you of course. Now lets say that 5 minutes ago, another spaceship piloted by Alice, in the exact same reference frame as Bob, plows into the earth, and at 99% the speed of light, explodes it fantastically. A million light years, and only 5 minutes. Obviously, this is well outside your light cone, so you have no way of knowing it happened 5 minutes ago, and obviously have no way of knowing it. Look at Bob and Alice though. Because they're in a different reference frame, they see things differently from you and Earth. From their perspective, Alice hits Earth and Blows up perhaps 5 or more minutes after Bob sees himself cruise by your ship. Again, that's still hundreds of thousands of light years away, and a handful of minutes. It happens outside of Bob's lightcone too, he'll never know until he sees the light from the impact in thousands or millions of years from now.
What happens if Ansibles exist? Well, perhaps the moonbase Ansibles you that Earth has been destroyed, but don't worry, they got the license plate. You receive this message five minutes before Bob buzzes right by you. You hop on your normal radio and tell Bob the bad news, that Alice's ship just blew up the Earth. But Bob is chatting with Alice right now on his own Ansible. She says oops, didn't check my blind spot, and adjusts her course. This is possible because in their reference frame, the impact event is still 5 or so minutes in the future. Naturally, this is a time paradox. Without the impact, moon base never tells you , and you never tell Bob, and Bob never tells Alice to adjust course. But without that, Alice hits Earth. Note that we never ever required FTL transmissions to be able to jump between reference frames. The moon to you was in the same frame, and Bob to Alice was in the same frame. Inter-frame comms happen by light speed radio. This works for non-instant FTL ansibles, too. Even if they transmit at 1.01C you can tweak the numbers and get a paradox, though in this example there wouldn't be enough time to realistically avoid the impact, you'd still get a message back in time.
So, that's why FTL isn't possible under relativity. Time dilation and length contraction allow you to cook up examples where events happen in the past of one frame, and the future of the other. This causes no contradictions, as those events must always occur beyond the light cones of the two people who would disagree on when they occurred. However, FTL means lightcones no longer represent the absolute limit of events that things can influence. If you can FTL, you can influence anything in your future, regardless of where it physically is. And that future may be somebody else's past still.
So you're right, anything that throws out relativity would potentially allow FTL that isn't also a time machine. However, consider mu mesons (muons) being emitted from the sun. Theory says their halflife is on the order of 10^-6 seconds. This theory is matched by particle accelerator data quite nicely. We observe the particle shower from decaying muons from the sun at a rate of about 412 impacts per hour at sea level, and about 568 impacts per hour at 2000 m above sea level. According to the (theoretical and empirical) half life of a muon, it should take only 0.76x10^-6
Slashdot Mirror
Only there's no such thing as generic IP, and there's no such thing as "IP theft", and in any event, he's not suing over THAT, he's suing over the trademark "CrunchPad", which they don't appear to be using.
Doesn't sound different? A rocket or an ion thruster or a theoretical fission of fusion or antimatter thruster works by shooting shit out the back at low-to-high speeds, making you shoot forwards. In the air, you can use a big propeller / fan to push the air around you backwards at high speeds. You use fuel up spinning those fans, but its way more efficient fuel wise than just squirting diesel out the back with a pump. But of course, with no air to push around, you can't use a turbofan in space. This newish idea is that you can push against the virtual particles in a vacuum using this or that technique, and essentially get a space propeller. Will it get to 3000-9000 s specific impulse like the ion thrusters? Maybe not. But right now, all it has to do is beat 500 s from a rocket thruster, but still scale high enough to outdo an ion thruster, which, though highly efficient, is extremely large and produces an extremely tiny amount of thrust. And maybe it'll only be useful until all those fancy fusion thrusters scientists are making up become a reality...but even then, a reactionless maneuvering thruster would be much safer for use in docking maneuvers, than say, plasma plumes shooting out at relativistic speeds? Not as useful at fighting of a Kzin ambush though, so give and take I suppose.
What legal principle allows a judge to void somebody's copyright because he doesn't like the terms of their license? If Microsoft successfully argued that they used GPL code because they thought the license was invalid, they just successfully argued that they committed willful copyright infringement by using code they, in good faith, believed they did not have a license to use.
I disagree, people already doubt Math and Physics. Honest to goodness people who reject math, saying it's just a theory, there's no such thing as 1 or 2 so 1+1=2 is meaningless babble and doesn't prove anything. They're the kind of people you see on TV, claiming to be actual scientists, saying that since either the LHC will destroy the world, or it won't, it's a 50% chance, only two options, so 50/50. There are a lot, A LOT of people who think that there's no such thing as probability, either. They say that since God designed our fates, everything meant to happen has a 100% chance, and everything else has a 0% chance. If I roll a die, and cover it up and look, maybe it says 3. So if I ask you, who doesn't see the number, what the chances are it's 3, it's 100%, because it is a 3. The fact that you can't see it can't change reality, they say!
I respectful disagree! Also this one. And for completness, a dress made of ties! (Though I guess that's not a good candidate for proving it's not weird).
They kept them. But they're earmarked "To give back once we get permission to use this song, if they ever call and we don't just hang up on them for some reason" so they reason it's perfectly legal.
Except that we do have statutory damages for willful copyright infringement. They admit they knew they didn't have the rights, and that they made $50 million off selling things they were fully aware they had zero rights to. In fact, this is a class action, over the fact that they have used a total of THREE MILLION SONGS WITHOUT PERMISSION. The law is clear, $20,000 per instance of copyright infringement. You're right, the Canadian courts haven't tested the legal principal that copyright infringement laws really mean per copy, not per copyrighted song that you misappropriate. If Canadian courts HAD approved such an absurd notion, then the CRIA members would be faction quadrillions in damages, where each CD they sold would mean them owing $20,000 per song, PER CD. Instead, it's limited to per song.
You need to have clear intent of raping and/or abducting a person that, as far as you know, IS a child (under 14). That is, if you chat up a chick online and ask her over for a quickie, you are in the clear even if she is 10, unless you knew she was 10, or had good cause to believe so. If on the other hand, you followed through after meeting in person, then your defense gets a whole shit load more difficult ;) To be clear, the law requires intent to commit the crime. The Supreme Court threw out the argument that the only way to prove intent is if the person follows through. This is clearly the right call, otherwise lots of things couldn't be crimes... "Yeah I pulled a knife on somebody said said 'Time to die for what you did to me!' but I never actually swung it before he kicked me in the balls and ran for it, how can you PROVE INTENT!?!?!?! Just because I clearly fucking did to anybody with any common sense, and also had motive because he stole my wife!? What an absurd law, it basically criminalizes everything, you can't prove a negative, how can YOU prove you didn't intent to murder him, you can't! You should all be arrested too!"
In your strawman slippery slope, did you have clear and obvious intent of raping and/or abducting your daughters friend, beyond all reasonable doubt?
Not unless a Crown Prosecutor proves beyond all reasonable doubt that you had intent to abduct and/or assault them.
It's always required to establish Mens Rea. (You might argue that criminal negligence has no intent to cause harm, but you do have to take conspicuously negligent action. The intent is over the actions, not the results). The judge did not overturn the requirement that you have criminal intent. He overturned the requirement that you actually commit the crime as the only way of demonstrating said intent. That is, you ask a 13 year old to come over for sex, you broke the law. The jury was instructed that until he has sex with her, he has not broken the law. The Supreme Court threw that out and said no, the Crown only need prove that he intended to, not that he succeeded. That is, they only need to prove intent, the actual topics of conversation don't have to be nefarious. That is, if you hop onto a twilight board and chat up xxxBella94xxx and tell her how you like Twilight, you are fine. Now if you track her down later and try to grab her, then you can be charged with child luring also, even though you never said anything dirty to her. Because they still need to prove intent! On the other hand, the other half of the ruling is that the accused needn't actually commit the crime they were intent upon for the luring charge to stick. So if you offer a child tickets to New Moon and ask her to come over to your place to get them, you can be charged with child luring even if you don't actual grab her because the police arrest you first. Because you had ill intent. Or maybe not? That's the Jury's god damn job. The law isn't a machine where you put a person in, and it says "Guilty". The Jury decides the intent of the person. If you said you asked a 12 year old girl over just so you could give her some free movie tickets, and never meant to rape her, I think you'd have to be incredibly persuasive! If, on the other hand, the only evidence against you was that you were talking to her about your favorite Twilight character, there's no way in hell I'd convict, and I'd write the Office of the Attorney General about the gross incompetence of the Crown Attorney.
Retrials are allowed if there were substantial mistakes made during the trial. In this case, the judge gave incorrect jury instruction with regards to the meaning of the law. Specifically, he told them that because the accused didn't actually have sex with a 12 year old, they had to find him not guilty, since without the act, there was no way to prove that he intended to follow through on his stated desire to have sex with her.
If you don't know, there is no Mens Rea, you cannot be convicted. If you ask an 18 year old on craigslist to meet for sex, it's not illegal if a 13 year old posted it, because you have no way of knowing at all. Now, if you actually have sex with her, she better look damn old so you can convince a jury you thought she looked 18!
Yes, if you hop on WoW and tell a 13* year old girl you want to meet to have sex, you can be arrested in Canada. If you tell her you like drinking, you're fine. You have to have an inappropriate conversation with the purpose of facilitating a future crime. If you're telling this 13 year old girl you want to take her drinking, yeah, that's illegal, you're facilitating breaking a law. In this case, the defense tried to argue that although he expressed an interest in doing so, since he took no overt action to put this desire into action, he didn't break the law. That is, since the law says the conversation is to facilitate a crime, you haven't broken this law until you try to break the law you were "facilitating" the breaking of. In this instance, he was having cyber sex with a 12 year old, which though icky, isn't illegal. However, he told her he wants to do it for real some day. He got arrested, and tried to argue that those are just words, and they can't prove he intended to go through with it, because he never made concrete arrangements. So he was found not guilty. The Supreme Court overturned this conviction, because that was incorrect jury instruction. The law requires only that you have a conversation with a child in order to facilitate committing a crime involving that child. Unlike conspiracy, no overt act is required outside the communication. He said he wants to have sex in person some day. The idea that if you're trying to meet a 12 year old for sex, it's not illegal until you set a specific date is absurd. If a parent walks in and sees this in the chat window, the guy is A OK law-wise, unless the parent lets him keep going and sets a specific time and place? I would pull the plug ASAP and call the police, and be deeply offended that he walks because I caught him trying to rape my 13 year old daughter before he set a specific place to meet her!
Scream all you want about a slippery slope, there is no slippery slope here. The law wasn't broadened. It still requires communicating an intent to break the law. What it does is throw out the idea that you need to make an overt physical act to fulfill those plans. The guy told a 12 year old he wants to have sex with her. He then tried to argue it was just empty talk, he would never really do it, no sir, cybersex with a 12 year old is enough for him. Maybe you believe him. That's fine. It actually is a fairly reasonable argument. Lots of married men browse adult dating sites and craigslist etc, but few of them ever intend to go through with it. The internet is full of people who get off to a variety of unhealthy fetishes, but probably have no intent of having a dominatrix cut their limbs off, or make them eat excrement, but still say how much they want it online. However, that's up to the jury to decide. They were told it doesn't matter his intent because he never made concrete plans. The Supreme Court said that's incorrect instruction, so now he gets a new trial. If he convinces the jury that he had no intent, he's free to go. And he expressed intent, so that will be hard for him to prove, he has to prove he wasn't serious, and its hard to convince a jury you weren't serious, when you were certainly serious about having cybersex with a girl you thought was 13 (she was really 12 but it IS about what you thought, not about what was real).
* You may think I chose 13 instead of 17 to make your arguments look worse. However, I did not. You say a child is LEGALLY somebody under 18, but you are mistaken, my good man. That's a minor. A child, and this law is about children, not minors, is under 14 (in Canada anyway). So, while I may have appeared to be making a strawman argument, 13 is actually the oldest possible person which this law applies to. Were you telling your 14 year old buddy on WoW, not your 13 year old buddy, that you want to take him drinking, you'd actually have to do so before you broke the law. Anyways, you can see I barely called you any names, so Canadians ARE nice, and I read TFA and the ruling before talking about it, so we're also sensible ;) Also, "Whaddya mean, you people eh?"
Canada's are called "Crown Attorney," "Attorney for the Crown," and such like. If they're in Federal Court, "Federal" is tacked on to their title. In Canada, all criminal law is the responsibility of the Federal Government in right of the Crown. That being said, the administration of said law is left up to the provinces, so although they do not get to set the law, they are the ones who run the courts. The exception being criminal cases involving laws that are not part of the criminal code, such as tax evasion and drugs, which are reserved for the Federal courts. (I imagine because when the delegation of power was written up, nobody imagined there would be criminal laws outside of the criminal code!)
Government lawyers who represent the government in non-criminal cases, such as Provincial and municipal laws, are called "General Counsel", and the term "Crown Counsel" can refer to either.
In Ontario it works just about exactly like the US system, where each District has exactly one Crown Attorney, and if he/she needs help, Assistant Crown Attorneys are hired. In other provinces, it works in a variety of ways. Unlike in the USA, they are not elected, but appointed by the Attorney General, so they don't tend to grandstand and try to win votes with highly publicized cases, so there is less of a risk of a Crown Attorney running wild with these "Child Luring" cases to make a name for himself. Though, as political appointments, they may feel some compulsion to toe the party line, I suppose.
The FBI bait sites are awesome, because they don't care how downloaded the image, just that you made the request. So, people have found out what the bait images are, apparently, and like to "FBI Roll" people by either linking to them directly, or even better, putting them as a 1x1 image hidden somewhere on an innocuous page. That way you never even see it, but it's in your browser cache now, so when the FBI comes knocking after your download, it'll be there. Somebody needs to step this program up a notch, and start FBI rolling every major newscaster, reporter, media executive, and politician (big and small). Until that happens, nobody gives a shit. Nobody cares that some innocent guy goes to jail for 3.5 years and can never get a job ever again and dies homeless, nobody cares in the slightest. Nobody even cares when a 17 year old girl gets 10 years for taking a pic of her tits and sending it to her boyfriend. Because she's a pedophile, it says so right here in the charges, anybody defending her is also a pedophile. And in fact, since she's underage, anybody defending her is a DOUBLE pedophile. You can imagine, a double pedophile is not something you want to be. That's right, the war on child porn is so bad, people won't even care about a white, privileged, teenage girl! I think you'd have to get every last person in the house and senate indited at once, because if you even only got half of them, the other half would turn on them like rabid wolves, cheering and applauding that the bait system works.
It's funny that with all your impotent rage over this poor blackmailer's privacy being violated, you don't seem to give, as you say, 0.1 of 1% of a shit about how he violated the woman's right to privacy, and her son's right to privacy. Nosir, they have no such right to privacy. Only the internet is private, and you can say ANYTHING and threaten ANYTHING against ANYBODY and your right to hide is sacrosanct. But your address, your phone number, where you go to school, none of that shit is private, information wants to be free, we have a GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO KNOW ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING (except, as you've established, IP addresses).
I guess I don't do any real work then, because if it's not an installer, it doesn't need to be run as administrator for me. I've never seen software that does! And even with installers, most of them are smart enough that they don't "need" to be run as an administrator unless you want to install it for all users, as opposed to just in your home directory.
That's how it works, except that MS apps aren't treated any differently than third party apps. There's System and Software (And Security and SAM and Users) and they're all separate files, treated as subkeys. And each user also has their own mini-registry they can be written to and read from without needing escalated privileges. Unfortunately, most Windows settings go in Software/Microsoft/Windows, when arguably, they should go in System/Settings or something along those lines. On the other hand, both System and Software require Administrator privileges to access...anyways, the boot process IS free from corruption. It's no different than Linux...if you have corrupted files, X11 might not load, but that didn't ruin your boot...if you don't know what you're doing without a GUI, you're just as hooped, but don't act like your system can no longer boot. Explorer went into failsafe mode, which is way better than it bluescreening.
Ya, Donatello was the Turtles' inventor, not Leonardo!
Well, PETA's animal shelters euthanize via lethal injection, often on the van ride back to the shelter, so they can dump the body illegally in somebody else's dumpster, and not have to worry about disposal costs, either. So I guess they'd just do that?
As I recall, Google pulled the video within an hour of being notified it was even posted, and identified for police the IP address of the poster, allowing them to catch the actual bullies. The prosecutor is hoping to springboard into real politics by making a name for himself as the man who takes on big evil corporations, and the fact that they did everything right, and broke now laws, and cooperated with police extremely promptly, none of that matters.
Yeah, or the minor distributors put in a lower bid. One or the other.
How can you act like he's against capitalism, then suggest a library, the most obvious assault on the free market by big government Marxists of them all! Authors worked hard cranking out that precious precious IP, and publishers worked hard taking all that IP for themselves. And now a government funded piracy mill thinks they can just give them away for free? It's illegal to lend music or software, but somehow it's ok to lend books!? (It being legal to lend movies is less outrageous, since Blockbuster is using this immunity for capitalism)! I once went into a library and a woman was reading a book to dozens of children. And was she paying royalties? NO. She was robbing the author blind, making an unauthorized public performance of his work, STEALING his right to chose how his work is presented, and not even paying for it! In Europe, those dirty libraries are forced to pay royalties each time a book is taken out. It's the law, the EU forces member nations to comply with this and outlaw lending, and imposes severe sanctions on member nations that allow evil libraries to operate within their borders. In Britain authors are only paid 2p (two pence, or pennies) and are furious, demanding far far far more royalties per loan. They are also capped at 6000 pounds per annum (total, over all works and all libraries), also sparking harsh criticism of the British government. Pay caps! Preposterous. If an author has 30,000 readers in a year, they're capped out, and we shouldn't reward them for writing new books?!
Sorry for getting off topic, but libraries really boil my blood! The USA is one of the last first world nations to allow these copyright infringement mills to operate LEGALLY, and it's a travesty. And even those that have rightly outlawed this barbaric anachronistic practice, just because "We've always had libraries", are still ripping off hard working authors, paying then cents on the dollar for their hard work!
Actually, that's caused by causality combined with relativity. Relativity is just relativity. You can send things faster than light. However, relativity says that is equivalent to them traveling back in time. The reason for that is that, for two reference frames to truly be equal, it can't be possible to agree on which of two events happened first for all cases. If you allow FTL communications, then this implies that the message must go back in time. The example is simple. Imagine you're sitting somewhere in deep space. Meanwhile, some asshole named Bob cruises straight by you at 99% the speed of light. Due to relativity, he sees you scream by him just as fast in the other direction. Lets say that Earth is a million light years away from you, relative to you of course. Now lets say that 5 minutes ago, another spaceship piloted by Alice, in the exact same reference frame as Bob, plows into the earth, and at 99% the speed of light, explodes it fantastically. A million light years, and only 5 minutes. Obviously, this is well outside your light cone, so you have no way of knowing it happened 5 minutes ago, and obviously have no way of knowing it. Look at Bob and Alice though. Because they're in a different reference frame, they see things differently from you and Earth. From their perspective, Alice hits Earth and Blows up perhaps 5 or more minutes after Bob sees himself cruise by your ship. Again, that's still hundreds of thousands of light years away, and a handful of minutes. It happens outside of Bob's lightcone too, he'll never know until he sees the light from the impact in thousands or millions of years from now.
What happens if Ansibles exist? Well, perhaps the moonbase Ansibles you that Earth has been destroyed, but don't worry, they got the license plate. You receive this message five minutes before Bob buzzes right by you. You hop on your normal radio and tell Bob the bad news, that Alice's ship just blew up the Earth. But Bob is chatting with Alice right now on his own Ansible. She says oops, didn't check my blind spot, and adjusts her course. This is possible because in their reference frame, the impact event is still 5 or so minutes in the future. Naturally, this is a time paradox. Without the impact, moon base never tells you , and you never tell Bob, and Bob never tells Alice to adjust course. But without that, Alice hits Earth. Note that we never ever required FTL transmissions to be able to jump between reference frames. The moon to you was in the same frame, and Bob to Alice was in the same frame. Inter-frame comms happen by light speed radio. This works for non-instant FTL ansibles, too. Even if they transmit at 1.01C you can tweak the numbers and get a paradox, though in this example there wouldn't be enough time to realistically avoid the impact, you'd still get a message back in time.
So, that's why FTL isn't possible under relativity. Time dilation and length contraction allow you to cook up examples where events happen in the past of one frame, and the future of the other. This causes no contradictions, as those events must always occur beyond the light cones of the two people who would disagree on when they occurred. However, FTL means lightcones no longer represent the absolute limit of events that things can influence. If you can FTL, you can influence anything in your future, regardless of where it physically is. And that future may be somebody else's past still.
So you're right, anything that throws out relativity would potentially allow FTL that isn't also a time machine. However, consider mu mesons (muons) being emitted from the sun. Theory says their halflife is on the order of 10^-6 seconds. This theory is matched by particle accelerator data quite nicely. We observe the particle shower from decaying muons from the sun at a rate of about 412 impacts per hour at sea level, and about 568 impacts per hour at 2000 m above sea level. According to the (theoretical and empirical) half life of a muon, it should take only 0.76x10^-6