You have an interesting definition of zero cost. Someone else pays for it, so it doesn't cost us anything and the people who do pay for it don't charge us any extra and neither does designing technology around the capability of being used for eavesdropping, regardless of the actual purpose of that technology have any costs involved.
The mechanical telephone system which permitted eavesdropping wasn't designed that way either, police just took advantage of the fact that it was possible. Like you, I'm uninclined to cripple future tech developments by imposing a design philosophy appropriate for mechanical telephone exchanges.
If a person is committing what can reasonably described as acts of war against a nation that they are not physically present in and the government of the nation that they _are_ present in declines to punish or extradite the individual, I think it's reasonable to regard that individual, and the government protecting them, as being in a state of war with the nation against which those acts of war were committed. That being the case, I would regard the individual as being subject to retaliation by the nation that they are at war with.
That, however, would be a very different scenario than an individual against whom all civilian legal avenues have not been exhausted.
I hope you feel the same way when it's Tony Abbott's appointees harassing the Sydney Morning Herald instead of Julia Gillards appointees harassing the Daily Telegraph.
"1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory
where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or
are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence."
Australia doesn't get a lot of refugees coming from Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, the Philippines or New Zealand.
What's more, it is, in fact, illegal and the convention calls it illegal on more than one occasion. Contracting states are, however, forbidden to penalize people who enter illegally provided they present themselves to the authorities promptly.
I suppose whether the Greens are soft left or, as I would call them, hard left, is a matter of where you're standing. However, Bob Brown's commitment to regulation of the media is hardly the sort of stuff I expect out of a center/left party. It's more a hard right/hard left kind of idea.
It's different inasmuch as Labor is in a hole WRT the slowly approaching election and are trying to win back blue collar voters that they have been sneering at for years by pushing an issue that is completely irrelevant to those same blue collar voters. I just can't figure out if Gillard actually thinks that flushing Labor's moral high ground on immigration is a good idea or if she's just trying to stick the knife into whoever takes over after she is dumped as leader. At least the second option would show some imagination; knifing someone in the back when you don't even know who it is is actually pretty impressive.
What the poster is referring to is civil forfeiture. If the police search you and discover you have a large quantity of cash in your possession, they will seize it under civil forfeiture laws, making the assumption that they only reason you might be carrying that much cash is because you either intend to purchase drugs or have just sold drugs. Any subsequent legal proceedings will be conducted against the money (literally "US vs $100,000") without many constitutional guarantees because the money is not a person and thus does not enjoy the constitutions protection. There is no need, at any point in this process, to convict the person who had possession of the cash of any crime.
You likely wouldn't get arrested, no evidence. The 100k on the other hand, would spend the rest of its natural life in durance vile, it not having any rights.
"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
If you're wrong one way, yes, you could wind up in a courtroom and potentially, jail. If you're wrong the other way, you're right back to the "carried by six" scenario
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree with your statement because it is not only wrong, it is weapons grade stupid.
The commonly used one doesn't actually include situations where it isn't actually zero cost.
You have an interesting definition of zero cost. Someone else pays for it, so it doesn't cost us anything and the people who do pay for it don't charge us any extra and neither does designing technology around the capability of being used for eavesdropping, regardless of the actual purpose of that technology have any costs involved.
If only we actually lived in that world.
The mechanical telephone system which permitted eavesdropping wasn't designed that way either, police just took advantage of the fact that it was possible. Like you, I'm uninclined to cripple future tech developments by imposing a design philosophy appropriate for mechanical telephone exchanges.
"You're going to redesign your technology to comply with laws designed for an ancient technology that became obsolete decades ago"
Yeah, that's a great plan.
A nation might have the power to kill whomever they want but that is a very different thing from a right.
If a person is committing what can reasonably described as acts of war against a nation that they are not physically present in and the government of the nation that they _are_ present in declines to punish or extradite the individual, I think it's reasonable to regard that individual, and the government protecting them, as being in a state of war with the nation against which those acts of war were committed. That being the case, I would regard the individual as being subject to retaliation by the nation that they are at war with.
That, however, would be a very different scenario than an individual against whom all civilian legal avenues have not been exhausted.
So jack your rates up and do the best damn job you know how to do.
I hope you feel the same way when it's Tony Abbott's appointees harassing the Sydney Morning Herald instead of Julia Gillards appointees harassing the Daily Telegraph.
Her policies are dictated by Bob Brown and she has no character.
You might want to find out which UN treaty you're talking about and actually read it. Pay particular attention to the word "directly"
Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees
"1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."
Australia doesn't get a lot of refugees coming from Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, the Philippines or New Zealand.
What's more, it is, in fact, illegal and the convention calls it illegal on more than one occasion. Contracting states are, however, forbidden to penalize people who enter illegally provided they present themselves to the authorities promptly.
I suppose whether the Greens are soft left or, as I would call them, hard left, is a matter of where you're standing. However, Bob Brown's commitment to regulation of the media is hardly the sort of stuff I expect out of a center/left party. It's more a hard right/hard left kind of idea.
It's different inasmuch as Labor is in a hole WRT the slowly approaching election and are trying to win back blue collar voters that they have been sneering at for years by pushing an issue that is completely irrelevant to those same blue collar voters. I just can't figure out if Gillard actually thinks that flushing Labor's moral high ground on immigration is a good idea or if she's just trying to stick the knife into whoever takes over after she is dumped as leader. At least the second option would show some imagination; knifing someone in the back when you don't even know who it is is actually pretty impressive.
Great, the people who object to criminal activity are "nuts" and the criminal is a "poll worker". The Spin King has nothing on Democrats.
At which point instead of tossing incendiary devices into suspected meth labs and torching 12 year old children, they'll be tossing incendiary devices into suspected fulminate of mercury labs. Great news!
Only if you're trying to argue honestly. If you're not, absolute numbers are just dandy and frequently useful :)
And if they hadn't been heavily armed, what would have been left when (if) that help arrived?
Gosh, the more things change...
the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not.
What the poster is referring to is civil forfeiture. If the police search you and discover you have a large quantity of cash in your possession, they will seize it under civil forfeiture laws, making the assumption that they only reason you might be carrying that much cash is because you either intend to purchase drugs or have just sold drugs. Any subsequent legal proceedings will be conducted against the money (literally "US vs $100,000") without many constitutional guarantees because the money is not a person and thus does not enjoy the constitutions protection. There is no need, at any point in this process, to convict the person who had possession of the cash of any crime.
You likely wouldn't get arrested, no evidence. The 100k on the other hand, would spend the rest of its natural life in durance vile, it not having any rights.
"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
If you're wrong one way, yes, you could wind up in a courtroom and potentially, jail. If you're wrong the other way, you're right back to the "carried by six" scenario
Even just one punch can result in death
You're going to need an alibi witness who can reliably distinguish between the twins.