No, because likely the judge would disallow any defense he might present. It happens all the time in the US where defendants are not allowed to present a defense. Marijuana charges are one such. You are not allowed to present evidence that it provides an actual medical benefit, nor are you allowed to present evidence of a sickness which a rational person might connect with marijuana as a logical medical treatment.
That's just one example of a crime where a reasonable defense is routinely declared off-limits by judges. There are many more. Snowden's case is another one.
It's not absurd as long as the American in question is also opposed to their own country's actions. I'm one such. I think the US should be broken up into a dozen or more independent countries, because it's run by imperialist assholes.
It's a bad thing, but not because the users lack knowledge of Unix archaeology. Rather, certain devs expect users to have this archaic knowledge despite reason dictating otherwise.
They're here in Washington for the US apple crop, among other harvests, so you must mean Canada. Canada isn't technically a US state, so I think your knowledge of places other than where you live is a bit off.
"most southernmost" was the redundancy being referenced. It shouldn't need an explanation as to why it's redundant.
No, they are not on the same continent, geologically speaking. Perhaps you should brush up on where the tectonic plate boundaries are. Big hint: there's one running down the West Coast, which is between Texas and Hawaii. It was already pointed out that "continental" was a key word, which you have now ignored twice in order to claim your statement wasn't completely incorrect.
A long time. Most tablet and phone manufacturers pay Android royalties to MS for patents which have never been publicly disclosed. Nobody knows for sure (except certain corporate lawyers) what these patents entail. It may be that the royalty costs are just lower than the cost of the legal years required to invalidate the patents.
You apparently don't actually know any libertarians then. They tend to do things based on deeply-held principles of not enacting aggression upon others, and as such I would trust all those I know far more than anyone else.
I was speaking in general. Note that there is no reference to her in my comment. I was simply pointing out that "blaming the victim" is not always illogical.
It's interesting that you attack me, rather than the point I was making. You make assumption after assumption, all based on an erroneous conclusion. Sad, really.
I didn't presume he worked harder. I stated is a fact. There are people who work harder, even if you can say in every case "but did they?" The question presumes that there is a burden of proof to be met before they get more than an equal share. The world is full of people who work harder than the vast majority. Calling them criminals is just a footstep down the slippery slope to murdering them. You cannot change human nature just because it's "not fair."
You presume many things to be true in order to support your argument. They are not necessarily true, but they are necessarily speculative. The burden of proof is on you, and you haven't come close to meeting it.
Are they? Doesn't matter. There are people who think they are and are willing to pay them commensurately. Ultimately, "worth" of work is subjective, and determined by demand. Do you think it's worth 10x as much? Irrelevant. Your opinion doesn't matter, because you're not paying them.
There will always be people who do not have the skill to contribute to anything others find meaningful. Life isn't fair, and to those life isn't fair to: deal with it.
(Note, I may sound insensitive, but I have terminal cancer. Life wasn't fair to me, but I deal with it rather than complaining.)
Hopefully this is tongue-in-cheek, though I know there are actually those out there who wholeheartedly believe such tripe. Why not make execution the punishment for everything? Obviously that will stop crime, and is 100% justifiable.
Slashdot Mirror
Most wireless routers provide multiple SSID functionality now, so no need to buy extra devices for multiple wireless network segments.
He would get a fair trial. The problem is he would not be able to present a credible defence [...]
You say he would get a fair trial, and then immediately follow that with the very reason his trial would not be fair...
No, because likely the judge would disallow any defense he might present. It happens all the time in the US where defendants are not allowed to present a defense. Marijuana charges are one such. You are not allowed to present evidence that it provides an actual medical benefit, nor are you allowed to present evidence of a sickness which a rational person might connect with marijuana as a logical medical treatment.
That's just one example of a crime where a reasonable defense is routinely declared off-limits by judges. There are many more. Snowden's case is another one.
It's not absurd as long as the American in question is also opposed to their own country's actions. I'm one such. I think the US should be broken up into a dozen or more independent countries, because it's run by imperialist assholes.
If by absolute support you mean "controls the ballot counting," then yes, he does.
It's a bad thing, but not because the users lack knowledge of Unix archaeology. Rather, certain devs expect users to have this archaic knowledge despite reason dictating otherwise.
What one posts on a site like Slashdot isn't necessarily an indication of how they interact professionally.
Tor does not host content, it simply disguises the source request for otherwise normal Internet content accessible by a normal browser.
They're here in Washington for the US apple crop, among other harvests, so you must mean Canada. Canada isn't technically a US state, so I think your knowledge of places other than where you live is a bit off.
A spaceport isn't a factory, and there are huge hurdles to building one. The analogy to factories doesn't really apply.
Damn, and I'm all out of Sudafed.
"most southernmost" was the redundancy being referenced. It shouldn't need an explanation as to why it's redundant.
No, they are not on the same continent, geologically speaking. Perhaps you should brush up on where the tectonic plate boundaries are. Big hint: there's one running down the West Coast, which is between Texas and Hawaii. It was already pointed out that "continental" was a key word, which you have now ignored twice in order to claim your statement wasn't completely incorrect.
A long time. Most tablet and phone manufacturers pay Android royalties to MS for patents which have never been publicly disclosed. Nobody knows for sure (except certain corporate lawyers) what these patents entail. It may be that the royalty costs are just lower than the cost of the legal years required to invalidate the patents.
Have you not read more than a couple Slashdot comments? Slashdot is filled with the gullible.
It was just pointing out that your statement was the equivalent of "So tcp 80 won't be throttled but tcp 80 uses will be -"
If those in Gaza were actually targeting civilians, they death toll on Israel's side wouldn't be 32 soldiers dead out of 35 total dead.
If Israel was targeting rocket launchers, the death toll in Gaza wouldn't be 166 children out of 662 dead.
Being anti-Israel is not the same thing as being anti-Semitic.
You apparently don't actually know any libertarians then. They tend to do things based on deeply-held principles of not enacting aggression upon others, and as such I would trust all those I know far more than anyone else.
I was speaking in general. Note that there is no reference to her in my comment. I was simply pointing out that "blaming the victim" is not always illogical.
It's interesting that you attack me, rather than the point I was making. You make assumption after assumption, all based on an erroneous conclusion. Sad, really.
I didn't presume he worked harder. I stated is a fact. There are people who work harder, even if you can say in every case "but did they?" The question presumes that there is a burden of proof to be met before they get more than an equal share. The world is full of people who work harder than the vast majority. Calling them criminals is just a footstep down the slippery slope to murdering them. You cannot change human nature just because it's "not fair."
You presume many things to be true in order to support your argument. They are not necessarily true, but they are necessarily speculative. The burden of proof is on you, and you haven't come close to meeting it.
Even those CEOs that fail though, got to where they are by not failing. Pretty much every single one went through that shit phase at least once.
Are they? Doesn't matter. There are people who think they are and are willing to pay them commensurately. Ultimately, "worth" of work is subjective, and determined by demand. Do you think it's worth 10x as much? Irrelevant. Your opinion doesn't matter, because you're not paying them.
There will always be people who do not have the skill to contribute to anything others find meaningful. Life isn't fair, and to those life isn't fair to: deal with it.
(Note, I may sound insensitive, but I have terminal cancer. Life wasn't fair to me, but I deal with it rather than complaining.)
The Ukrainian government isn't prohibiting access to the site. Ukrainian militants are.
Hopefully this is tongue-in-cheek, though I know there are actually those out there who wholeheartedly believe such tripe. Why not make execution the punishment for everything? Obviously that will stop crime, and is 100% justifiable.
Even if that's the case, how is any of that worse than what we have now?