Ah, yes. Humans are so homogenious. The mean, median, and mode of the height of humans are all the same. We all know that the mean, mode, and median for annual income in the U.S. are identical. Yes. Everything spread evenly across the curve.
Hell, in the U.S., there's even a constitutional amendment aginst self incrimination, the fifth. You have no obligation to walk up to a law enforcement officer and go, "Excuse me, I just exceeded the speed limit. Please issue me a citation."
I understand what the governments reasons were for having crypto on the munitions list, but it is still a dumb reason. The math is fairly simple for quite a few of the algorithms and there are people outside the U.S. who can code, so making it so U.S. companies can't sell their software outside the U.S. is stupid.
As to my security through obscurity comment, it had nothing to do with crypto being on the munitions list, but with FBI/DOD having extensions and additional code tied into the software which they wouldn't want others who weren't cleared to know to have access to, but that the company providing support needed to know.
And?... nothing. Crypto was removed from the munitions list years ago wan't it? It's been about 10 years since I have done crypto work and I haven't kept up on the munitions list status. Even if it is still on the list, why would it matter? If it is a vetted algorithim and implimentation, having the source code would do nothing to help the enemy state anyway. The only reason something like keeping the code out of forign hands would work is if the "security" of the product was enforced by "obscurity". Age old problem, and stupid implimentation if it is.
My guess is that the.gov version of Snort has some hooks that allow it to work with some.gov developed software to identify traffic of a certain nature outside the realm of the intrusion detection rules built in, or pass off data streams to a seperate node for follow-on processing like decryption and such.
Or, $SecretAgency could modify the code and compile it to binary and not distribute it, but allow Check Point Software access to the source as part of the support contract so that if $SecretAgency calls for support the support staff at Check Point Software won't simply scratch their heads and go, "that's not how it's supposed to work!"
He doesn't need discounts on sewing machines. The companies that he contracts with to produce a half a mil of his latest fashion obscenity needs the discount on sewing machines. Tommy needs discounts on computers and software because his company neeeds to integrate with and coordinate with all of those other companies in their supply chain. Tommy needs to be able to send the numbers to his accountants firms. Tommy needs computers to work with his ad agency so he can convince even more sheeple to buy his stuff. I'm betting that, just like every other "idea" company in the U.S., Tommy has multiple hundreds of thousands tied up in hardware and licenses for software.
Huh? That's utter bullshit. Fistly, I believe what you are alluding to with your power x distance statement is that you wish to tell me that the inverse square law applies to both your noise transmission as well as the signal I wish to recieve. That would be a correct statement. Secondly, you would have to raise the noise floor across my spectrum to quite a few dB above what I'm attempting to recieve to really hurt my reception. With the inverse square law mentioned earlier, you would need to be very close or have a very powerful transmitter. Either way your jamming effect would be very localized or really expensive. Oh, and how are you going to cover the entire RF spectrum? Set up a spark gap with a few kW of input?
Ok. I believe we are saying similar thing from slightly different vantage points. If state A calls up state B and says Joe Schmoe, currently living at 123 N. South st. in is wanted on 10 counts of charge 2. Please send his ass to us for prosecution. State B will notify the police who have jurisdiction over the location, who will arrest him if he is there or to be found resonably close. He doesn't have to already be in the custody of the asylum state. He has been found. A state doesn't request arrest and extradition if they have no idea what the whereabouts of the accused are.
As to law enforcement not finding someone if they simply don't want to, that would be courting a nasty case on contempt or worse if they can show you willingly avoided following Article IV section 1 about giving full faith and credit to other states.
They are required to make an effort if the governors orders it, and that is how extradition between states works. The governor of the flight state demands the return of the criminal to the asylum states governor. By constitutional law the asylum state has to make an effort to comply. Article 4 section 1 and 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
Ok. If we are going to get more specific... "Flee from justice" in the legal sense is slightly different than what you and I would mean by it. Secondly, The actual case that was panned by the SCOTUS references a federal law that is applied according to local custom and morals. The law is the Computer Decency Act of 1996. Since it is a federal law it is even easier to get the arrest and extradition. "She intentionally put that up on her web site, and that picture is criminal in our state." Ta freakin da.
Absolutly nothing. The difference is between applying american laws to americans in america, and applying laws from a forign country to americans in america. In the first case you can be extridited whether the law is on the books in both states or just the one bringing the charges. In the second case the law must exist in roughly the same form in both countries. The first example is defined by the Constitution, and the second simply by treaty.
There are obscenity laws, obscenity is not a law. Obscene just means offensive to someones standards or morals. Criminalizing obscenity is done by enacting obscenity laws which are different than obscene laws.
Nope. The merit has to do with the flight state showing the asylum state that they had a crime commited as defined in their jurisdiction, and that there is evidence linking the person to the crime. No proving they are guilty, just enough that a grand jury would move for a trial.
Ah, but you are missing the point. You have your definition of person, I have my definition of person, and the original poster has theirs. I'm sure all three of our definitions overlap at quite a few points, and vary greatly at others. Like I said, the definition of what a person is an opinion. There is no scientifically provable definition of "person".
Oh, and by the definition that you use about communication ability, an entity, can't call it a person because it doesn't meet your criteria, that is in a vegetative state isn't a person. Neither is an entity in a coma. If you are really strict in your interpretation when someone is asleep, they are no longer a person. Think that analogy is dumb? Well it is. And asinine also. Just like yours. Neither proves a thing.
You assume a fetus is the social equivalent of a person. You need to prove that fact before your anaology works. And do note that potential and acutality are quite different - status based on these qualities will naturally also be different.
How do you prove an opinion as fact? I'm curious. "What is a person" or "what is human" are opinions, and can't be proven or disproven. You can write laws that define the boundries for legal purposes, but that could get ugly fast.
No. As pointed out elsewhere the doctrine of dual criminality would apply, so if the crime isn't a crime in both international jurisdictions there would be no extradition. The problem comes when deciding just how close the laws are for the action of defining double criminality.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, yes. Humans are so homogenious. The mean, median, and mode of the height of humans are all the same. We all know that the mean, mode, and median for annual income in the U.S. are identical. Yes. Everything spread evenly across the curve.
Ernestine, is that you?!?!
Hell, in the U.S., there's even a constitutional amendment aginst self incrimination, the fifth. You have no obligation to walk up to a law enforcement officer and go, "Excuse me, I just exceeded the speed limit. Please issue me a citation."
I understand what the governments reasons were for having crypto on the munitions list, but it is still a dumb reason. The math is fairly simple for quite a few of the algorithms and there are people outside the U.S. who can code, so making it so U.S. companies can't sell their software outside the U.S. is stupid.
As to my security through obscurity comment, it had nothing to do with crypto being on the munitions list, but with FBI/DOD having extensions and additional code tied into the software which they wouldn't want others who weren't cleared to know to have access to, but that the company providing support needed to know.
Well, one of them did coin a word concerning them that became popular, so therefore they must have invented all of it. See. QED. ;)
Well, since it's still on the list, it's still as moronic a regulation now as it was 10 years ago when I stopped tinkering with crypto.
And?... nothing. Crypto was removed from the munitions list years ago wan't it? It's been about 10 years since I have done crypto work and I haven't kept up on the munitions list status. Even if it is still on the list, why would it matter? If it is a vetted algorithim and implimentation, having the source code would do nothing to help the enemy state anyway. The only reason something like keeping the code out of forign hands would work is if the "security" of the product was enforced by "obscurity". Age old problem, and stupid implimentation if it is.
.gov version of Snort has some hooks that allow it to work with some .gov developed software to identify traffic of a certain nature outside the realm of the intrusion detection rules built in, or pass off data streams to a seperate node for follow-on processing like decryption and such.
My guess is that the
Or, $SecretAgency could modify the code and compile it to binary and not distribute it, but allow Check Point Software access to the source as part of the support contract so that if $SecretAgency calls for support the support staff at Check Point Software won't simply scratch their heads and go, "that's not how it's supposed to work!"
they *require* support from engineers in the US.
Even if the engineers aren't citizens of the U.S. Got to love that.
He doesn't need discounts on sewing machines. The companies that he contracts with to produce a half a mil of his latest fashion obscenity needs the discount on sewing machines. Tommy needs discounts on computers and software because his company neeeds to integrate with and coordinate with all of those other companies in their supply chain. Tommy needs to be able to send the numbers to his accountants firms. Tommy needs computers to work with his ad agency so he can convince even more sheeple to buy his stuff. I'm betting that, just like every other "idea" company in the U.S., Tommy has multiple hundreds of thousands tied up in hardware and licenses for software.
Huh? That's utter bullshit. Fistly, I believe what you are alluding to with your power x distance statement is that you wish to tell me that the inverse square law applies to both your noise transmission as well as the signal I wish to recieve. That would be a correct statement. Secondly, you would have to raise the noise floor across my spectrum to quite a few dB above what I'm attempting to recieve to really hurt my reception. With the inverse square law mentioned earlier, you would need to be very close or have a very powerful transmitter. Either way your jamming effect would be very localized or really expensive. Oh, and how are you going to cover the entire RF spectrum? Set up a spark gap with a few kW of input?
The hell it doesn't apply in intentional jamming scenerios. That is one of the things it is designed to do. Be resitant to jamming.
No worries. I got the OP's joke about the second amendment, it was the reply, to which I replied, that left me confused.
Ok. I believe we are saying similar thing from slightly different vantage points. If state A calls up state B and says Joe Schmoe, currently living at 123 N. South st. in is wanted on 10 counts of charge 2. Please send his ass to us for prosecution. State B will notify the police who have jurisdiction over the location, who will arrest him if he is there or to be found resonably close. He doesn't have to already be in the custody of the asylum state. He has been found. A state doesn't request arrest and extradition if they have no idea what the whereabouts of the accused are.
As to law enforcement not finding someone if they simply don't want to, that would be courting a nasty case on contempt or worse if they can show you willingly avoided following Article IV section 1 about giving full faith and credit to other states.
Two words. Spread spectrum.
Generate all the noise you want.
Did you mean Eminent Domain, or am I missing the joke?
They are required to make an effort if the governors orders it, and that is how extradition between states works. The governor of the flight state demands the return of the criminal to the asylum states governor. By constitutional law the asylum state has to make an effort to comply. Article 4 section 1 and 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
Ok. If we are going to get more specific... "Flee from justice" in the legal sense is slightly different than what you and I would mean by it. Secondly, The actual case that was panned by the SCOTUS references a federal law that is applied according to local custom and morals. The law is the Computer Decency Act of 1996. Since it is a federal law it is even easier to get the arrest and extradition. "She intentionally put that up on her web site, and that picture is criminal in our state." Ta freakin da.
Absolutly nothing. The difference is between applying american laws to americans in america, and applying laws from a forign country to americans in america. In the first case you can be extridited whether the law is on the books in both states or just the one bringing the charges. In the second case the law must exist in roughly the same form in both countries. The first example is defined by the Constitution, and the second simply by treaty.
There are obscenity laws, obscenity is not a law. Obscene just means offensive to someones standards or morals. Criminalizing obscenity is done by enacting obscenity laws which are different than obscene laws.
Nope. The merit has to do with the flight state showing the asylum state that they had a crime commited as defined in their jurisdiction, and that there is evidence linking the person to the crime. No proving they are guilty, just enough that a grand jury would move for a trial.
Ah, but you are missing the point. You have your definition of person, I have my definition of person, and the original poster has theirs. I'm sure all three of our definitions overlap at quite a few points, and vary greatly at others. Like I said, the definition of what a person is an opinion. There is no scientifically provable definition of "person".
Oh, and by the definition that you use about communication ability, an entity, can't call it a person because it doesn't meet your criteria, that is in a vegetative state isn't a person. Neither is an entity in a coma. If you are really strict in your interpretation when someone is asleep, they are no longer a person. Think that analogy is dumb? Well it is. And asinine also. Just like yours. Neither proves a thing.
And if that is the way they learn best why should they be denied that?
You assume a fetus is the social equivalent of a person. You need to prove that fact before your anaology works. And do note that potential and acutality are quite different - status based on these qualities will naturally also be different.
How do you prove an opinion as fact? I'm curious. "What is a person" or "what is human" are opinions, and can't be proven or disproven. You can write laws that define the boundries for legal purposes, but that could get ugly fast.
No. As pointed out elsewhere the doctrine of dual criminality would apply, so if the crime isn't a crime in both international jurisdictions there would be no extradition. The problem comes when deciding just how close the laws are for the action of defining double criminality.