Run the numbers, before and after such as nondiscretional concealed-carry laws, under which authorities cannot deny you a CCW permit just because they feel you should not have one -- that is, they need a legal disqualification like being a felon. The numbers have been crunched, and the HCI crowd's thesis was left wanting...
FWIW, firearms storage is largely a state/local issue. In most states, IIRC, there are indeed restrictions -- at least when children are in the house, about whether or not you must use a lock (although -- a trigger lock on a loaded firearm is a *BAD* idea...), whether it must be in a gun safe, and so forth. It's not a Federal matter, really.
I'd be surprised if that would pay for a single 30-second spot in the NYC area, let alone, oh, two weeks' worth of travel for a candidate, his spouse, and a few handlers.
Unless you want candidates to only campaign via e-mail spam and by inviting reporters over for tea, you'd better add some more zeroes.
Did you forget to count the Hezbollah soldiers, with automatic weapons, Katyusha rockets, explosives, and plenty of experience with all of them? Plus backing from Syria?
The leaders of the Days of Rage are instigating armed rebellion -- aided and abetted by their political leadership. The Israeli objective should be using sufficient firepower to shut them down with minimum losses to themselves and uninvolved civillians, not to be nice and friendly in order to even up the casualty columns.
The word "militia" has a very specific definition in the US Code, and that's used for the (last I checked, three) Militia Acts. The unorganized militia is VERY large today.
Note that
a) Even from the beginning... the very first Militia Act required the militia to supply and keep their OWN firearms and ammunition.
b) This was derived from English law, which at one point was pretty specific about their citizens keeping their own personal arms, and on their premises.
c) The 2nd Amendment does not specify that only militia members may bear arms, but instead that the right shall not be infringed -- for the people. This is the same word as used in the other amendments to specify individual rights.
...He has said he felt like James Bond. Still, according to figures calculated by law enforcement officials (figures that Mitnick disputes), he caused at least $300 million in damage, with millions spent on new security systems alone.
Only $300 million worth of damage? Blofeld's oil rig, Goldfinger's base, at least two Russian nuclear submarines, a Columbian drug factory, a biotechnology research lab, countless souped-up cars, helicopters and motorcycles... Mitnick's nothing compared to Bond.
That's one bit about online gambling, and we've seen it already -- people will run up LARGE debts on credit. Slashdot's posted an article or two on folks who've gotten refunds from their CC companies due to (illegal) online gambling, already, and IIRC at least one of the cases exceeded $10,000. Unless these folks plan on having their own private debit accounts (when you set up the account, you also plonk down cash/check, and that's your limit -- e.g. a pre-paid gambling card, really), hrmmmmm.
I'm definitely not the only one here getting frequent credit card ads (Not that I use credit more than every 6 mos-1 year; the main culprit is MNBA which provides "affinity" cards to me as both a student and alum. So others are probably getting far far more...) offering pretty hefty credit limits.
With on-line, you don't even need to bring cash -- your MC/Visa/Amex suffices. It's easier that way. I don't gamble much (dropped $20 in Vegas, once. Heh. I'm not exactly going to earn one of their high-roller suites anytime soon), but I do shop for hardware, books, etc -- and I probably spend much more total than I would without the plethora of online sources, simply because it's easier. For a habitual gambler, it'll probably be much the same way.
Click. Click. Click. *Ding*. Click.
It'd be like sitting in front of one of those slot machines that lets you put in a bill so you can push buttons for a while before refilling it, minus the cheery music with fewer old women drawing from their buckets of coins for hours.
If the State Lotteries could avoid getting burnt by fraud, transaction fees (most lotteries are, what, $1-2/ticket? Perhaps charge for $10+ at a time?), and interstate gambling, it might be VERY profitable indeed.
There's a fair bit of Federal legislation banning this sort of thing, defining "assault weapon" as the combination of at least X out of Y listed characteristics. These characteristics include, if memory serves, things like ammo capacity (perhaps referring to the largest clip that fits?), whether or not it can take a bayonet, presumably whether it's semi-/full-auto, and so forth.
Don't expect to be able to legally import, say, a full-auto Kalashnikov or FN-FAL. IIRC, you probably can't legally import a semi-auto AK variant, either, and likewise semi-auto shotguns (ala the "Street Sweeper") are also banned for importation if memory serves.
A) This only applies to evidence relevant to finding the whereabouts of a fugitive from justice. A person only under investigation does not count. A person under arrest does not count. Evidence relevant to guilt does not count. Evidence requested must be relevant to finding a fugitive.
B) These are not secret -- in fact, they have to be reported (in number) to the House and Senate, at least for the next three years. In order to avoid disclosure to third parties, a Court must agree to one of various conditions, and "just because the AG says so" is not one of them. And judges DO get seriously, seriously angry at the Federal Government when they feel that the latter is abusing their court -- and the court can specify that nondisclosure is only temporary...
The court system is not being bypassed, folks.
But thanks for the alarmism. Without that, this just would not be Slashdot, no?
Not really. Keep in mind that this is apparently a custom design, not something just built around COTS foo. It may not even be remotely accessible depending upon design.
Would you ask that the FBI reveal the technical capabilities of its wiretapping methods, and how its bugs transmit information back to the operators (or how such information is collected, if it requires servicing a drop of some kind), so that the next Mafia capo tutti capo-wannabee can look out for such happenings?
Or would you ask that the NRO declassify the capabilities of US surveillance satellites, so that those who wish not to be observed know better how to camouflage?
Oh, and while we're at it, we might as well as the Russians for blueprints of all their ICBM designs, nuclear warheads, detonation and safety systems. And details of the security precautions and layouts of each installation. We're much safer knowing that anybody can learn how one might try to capture a thermonuclear device, and then smuggle it afar.
There are many, many details which have been successfully obscured. Just because many programmers lack the competence to design a remotely secure system, does not mean that any system that is secret is insecure, or that opening such a system is in the slightest appropriate.
Actually, murder can be a Federal crime -- the cardinal example might be murdering a postal worker, and thus interfering with the mail system.
The 14th amendment (IIRC, that's the one guaranteeing equal protection under the law) combined with the elastic clause also yields justification for civil rights law and Federal investigation, when the local authorities are unable or unwilling, such as when local authorities who also happened to be Klansmen conspired to murder civil rights workers. The intervention via the Airborne troopers escorting black students to school against the wishes of Gov. Faubus was another clearly justified case. Local corruption, such as that relating to a former Governor of Alaska, sometimes also require Federal jurisdiction for effective prosecution.
We do need Federal law enforcement for these reasons, plus for pretty much anything that clearly transcends the authority of a single state such as interstate smuggling operations or international investigations. The Founding Fathers chose to give jurisidiction over interstate commerce and international affairs to the Federal government for a reason, presumably related to their experiences with the weak government defined by the Articles of Confederation, and to avoid counterproductive silliness such as states taxing products from other states, or worse, making their own independent treaties and declarations of war. I an fairly sure that my state does not have a counterintelligence network capable of monitoring FSB infiltration on its own, should any FSB agents for whatever reason feel Pennsylvania merits their interest, and PA most probably does not have its own agents investigating bin Laden's network at the moment.
You are correct that it has indeed at times been stretched too far. Civil forfeiture law has been cited as one obvious problem, and has gotten some attention from Congress for its abuses. By no means is Federal law enforcement unjustified in all cases, however.
Many criminals aren't terribly clued, and few are careful to the extreme. The World Trade Center bombers come to mind as cardinal examples -- returning to claim a refund on the Ryder Truck wasn't the smoothest of possible moves.
There used to be a "Moron Muster" listing people who posted, publicly (on USENET, in plaintext) blatantly requesting pirated software (usually caught via a fake FTP w4r3z S1t3 announcement followed by a request for public "add me to the list" posts. Sure, they got added to a list...) The list was alarmingly large, but IIRC is no longer maintained.
The Algerian who got caught with explosives at the Canadian border 'round New Years -- apparently he or somebody in his cell made a pretty hefty mistake. Perhaps t'was infiltrated -- ISTR that once upon a time, a very, very large number of "members" of various extremist orgs like Weathermen, Klan spin-offs, and such, were actually Feds.
As for legality, well, that is a concern. Frankly, even for a "good cause" (counterrorism), I would not want to accept a precedent which said that existing statutes should be ignored when it is expedient to do so; it is too easy to cynically manufacture "good causes".
Consequently, current privacy guarantees should be maintained... and whether that is true may be based upon how good Carnivore's filtering system is. If the architecture guarantees that only specifically targetted communications will be visible to human observers (Ever. Not on tape; not shown on screen; but INVISIBLE as far as Carnivore's users and the users of its product are concerned), then it could be permissible. But ignoring existing Constitutional protections, or those granted by laws consistent with such, simply due to expedience is intolerable.
Foreign intelligence may mean gathering SIG/ELINT on foreigners either in or with connections in the US, as well. They'd have to be careful not to accidentally listen to unrelated conversations between citizens that just happen to be using the same line, which may be tricky at times.
You may want to capture e-mail going to saddam.hussein@yahoo.com (No, I didn't check to see whether that's a valid address...). Sure, he isn't guaranteed full protections under the law. But your system better not result in a human being ever accidentally reading mail sent to bclinton+monica@yahoo.com, so you have to be careful designing, implementing and using whatever devices and methods are needed. Plus, the ISP has certain rights, too...
I'd think they've more cynical than stupid. Right now, they need to maximize electoral votes, which means pandering to blocs of undecideds.
As one Dem. media chap said (on PBS after the second pres. debate), everybody knows that the "promises" made during a campaign are non-binding.
They're just trying to gain votes, for the most part -- although some of their stances ARE unpopular. (Try considering Bush's pledge to appoint strict constructionists. Then figure out how to reconcile the Dept. of Education with strict constructionism, considering that the only relevant clause is the elastic clause, IIRC, and it's hard to argue that the states are incapable of administering education systems while the Feds are not. But then try to convince the public to kill the department -- that'll cost you votes.)
They'd accuse each other of being from outer space if their research suggested it'd be a net plus.
The young are also a bit more idealistic and impressionable. From what I've seen, they're more willing to accept a utopian ideology, despite its impracticalities or impossibilities, and even waste their time propagandizing about it, or trying to set it in motion. Particularly when there is so much disinformation being propagated by those with political agendas, be they left or right.
Ever watch a 14-yr-old trying to defend Marxist theory online? It'd be hilarious if it weren't sad due to the lack of situational awareness that demonstrates. Lack of experience can hamper judgement, apparently.
Take a few clueless chaps who have the ego and audacity to think that *they* have the one true path, give 'em readily-available information about, say, primitive explosives design, and they can do a fair bit of damage to themselves and those around them. Grandiousity and an exaggerated sense of self-importance can lead to silly, bloody plans -- regardless of source, be it ideology or simply a desire for fame.
Recall the Columbine chaps? Their plans were so ridiculous as to include hijacking a jumbo jet and crashing it into NYC -- from a couple of chaps who apparently couldn't properly detonate a propane-based explosive when other's lives (or taking of them) depended on it. Very Hollywood, that; a plan for fatally stupid imbeciles.
Critics of the 'net have a valid point in that there is much information dangerous in the hands of violent fools -- and that, therefore, parents should be careful to mind their children. Right now, many families have -- and, many would say, need -- two working parents. That more than slightly reduces the time available to spend with them, which makes it more difficult to know if an unruly teen has been contributing to Stormfront or its ilk lately. To absolve the medium completely, with fun documents like a short guide to explosives easily found (that doc revealed via Google), is a bit disingenuous.
As someone who DOES look at such issues, and searches for law and fact rather than propaganda... you happen to be wrong.
*sigh*
There are two types of militia -- the Organized and the Unorganized. Most of the US-based Slashdotters are part of the latter, I'd wager, as defined by the US Code --
10 USC Sec. 311 (a) --
(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.
And if you're curious about the term 'arms', you can trace its history throughout precedents in English law, where t'was taken to mean primarily person-carried firearms (excluding, say, horse-drawn cannon and other large artillery), and it WAS indeed meant that the people retain their weapons on their property, not in arsenals.
Sounds like yet-another-episode of Russian space program blackmail (they've periodically asked for overseas funding for their part of the ISS, if memory serves).
Maybe if they could track down some of those funds that were laundered through the Bank of NY, or perhaps some of the Swiss accounts connected to the Yeltsin family, they could find a lot more than $7-$10 million.
Some of these just seem silly. Actually, a lot do...
".three33" ?
".air" -- what, now industry-specific domains?
".cool" -- Um, right.
".museum" -- why, oh why, would they need an entire TLD ? What,.org isn't big enough for 'em?
A lot just seemed aimed at grabbing a piece of the pie -- especially coming from those corps that appear to be registrars, and choose a TLD named after themselves. And the folks at Name.Space, well, my thoughts on them aren't exactly polite...
But some are interesting.
".global" -- makes sense for multinats orgs/corps.
".mobile" -- Hrm. Perhaps.
".kids" -- Hm. If they have a decent TOS/AUP requirement to allow booting the obvious kiddie-porn domains...
".xxx" -- if there's an incentive for porn operators to use it, rather than just.com. I'm not sure what that would be, short of legislative action, however, and that'd have to be done through treaties or agreements between all registrars...
I suppose the argument is that the RIAA might come out ahead, because a fair number of Napster's users might not actually buy the music that they download otherwise -- they'd just make do without.
But to figure that out (crunching all the variables) would be tricky (to do accurately, methinks), plus to accept this would be legitimizing the Napster approach (in particular, that Napster makes this offer only after being threatened with legal action); it might be tempting just to refuse all deals and shut 'em down to make the point that it's wiser to ask for permission first.
Read the article. These would basically be used to pay the RIAA members -- IOW, a form of licensing, just not per song download. The advocate suggests that $4.95/mo might generate half a million for the RIAA.
If they now claim to be able to do that (I didn't see this in the article...), then they probably should be able to figure out which MP3 it is... in which case, their ignorance defense goes completely out the window and instead it'd be argued that they're being willfully negligent.
Well, in certain states, yes. Some (many?) have laws patterned after a "Megan's Law", named after the victim of a repeat sex offender. In general, they stipulate that offenders have to register, and update information when they move and so forth. Whether this database is public or only available to law enforcement varies, methinks. Different states may also perhaps set different minimum offenses (a single molestation offense, versus one involving homicide, or whatever), or perhaps how long one has to keep registering .
AFAIK, there is no federal statute requiring this, and it at least was debated early on -- with opponents of the law arguing either that it was cruel and unusual (at least in the case of public databases, since that's basically a scarlet letter), led to vigilantism (innocent people have been mistaken for sex offenders, stalked and attacked), or otherwise argued that the prison time is sufficient and that no further penalty should be arbitrarily added by a legislature beyond that stipulated by a judge.
The opponents generally lost. It's hard to argue such an emotionally charged issue on the basis of dry concepts.
Slashdot Mirror
Run the numbers, before and after such as nondiscretional concealed-carry laws, under which authorities cannot deny you a CCW permit just because they feel you should not have one -- that is, they need a legal disqualification like being a felon. The numbers have been crunched, and the HCI crowd's thesis was left wanting...
FWIW, firearms storage is largely a state/local issue. In most states, IIRC, there are indeed restrictions -- at least when children are in the house, about whether or not you must use a lock (although -- a trigger lock on a loaded firearm is a *BAD* idea...), whether it must be in a gun safe, and so forth. It's not a Federal matter, really.
Bzzt. Go open your ears, and try again.
Um... $20k?
I'd be surprised if that would pay for a single 30-second spot in the NYC area, let alone, oh, two weeks' worth of travel for a candidate, his spouse, and a few handlers.
Unless you want candidates to only campaign via e-mail spam and by inviting reporters over for tea, you'd better add some more zeroes.
Did you forget to count the Hezbollah soldiers, with automatic weapons, Katyusha rockets, explosives, and plenty of experience with all of them? Plus backing from Syria?
The leaders of the Days of Rage are instigating armed rebellion -- aided and abetted by their political leadership. The Israeli objective should be using sufficient firepower to shut them down with minimum losses to themselves and uninvolved civillians, not to be nice and friendly in order to even up the casualty columns.
The word "militia" has a very specific definition in the US Code, and that's used for the (last I checked, three) Militia Acts. The unorganized militia is VERY large today.
Note that
a) Even from the beginning... the very first Militia Act required the militia to supply and keep their OWN firearms and ammunition.
b) This was derived from English law, which at one point was pretty specific about their citizens keeping their own personal arms, and on their premises.
c) The 2nd Amendment does not specify that only militia members may bear arms, but instead that the right shall not be infringed -- for the people. This is the same word as used in the other amendments to specify individual rights.
...He has said he felt like James Bond. Still, according to figures calculated by law enforcement officials (figures that Mitnick disputes), he caused at least $300 million in damage, with millions spent on new security systems alone.
Only $300 million worth of damage? Blofeld's oil rig, Goldfinger's base, at least two Russian nuclear submarines, a Columbian drug factory, a biotechnology research lab, countless souped-up cars, helicopters and motorcycles... Mitnick's nothing compared to Bond.
How many casinos take credit cards?
That's one bit about online gambling, and we've seen it already -- people will run up LARGE debts on credit. Slashdot's posted an article or two on folks who've gotten refunds from their CC companies due to (illegal) online gambling, already, and IIRC at least one of the cases exceeded $10,000. Unless these folks plan on having their own private debit accounts (when you set up the account, you also plonk down cash/check, and that's your limit -- e.g. a pre-paid gambling card, really), hrmmmmm.
I'm definitely not the only one here getting frequent credit card ads (Not that I use credit more than every 6 mos-1 year; the main culprit is MNBA which provides "affinity" cards to me as both a student and alum. So others are probably getting far far more...) offering pretty hefty credit limits.
With on-line, you don't even need to bring cash -- your MC/Visa/Amex suffices. It's easier that way. I don't gamble much (dropped $20 in Vegas, once. Heh. I'm not exactly going to earn one of their high-roller suites anytime soon), but I do shop for hardware, books, etc -- and I probably spend much more total than I would without the plethora of online sources, simply because it's easier. For a habitual gambler, it'll probably be much the same way.
Click. Click. Click. *Ding*. Click.
It'd be like sitting in front of one of those slot machines that lets you put in a bill so you can push buttons for a while before refilling it, minus the cheery music with fewer old women drawing from their buckets of coins for hours.
If the State Lotteries could avoid getting burnt by fraud, transaction fees (most lotteries are, what, $1-2/ticket? Perhaps charge for $10+ at a time?), and interstate gambling, it might be VERY profitable indeed.
There's a fair bit of Federal legislation banning this sort of thing, defining "assault weapon" as the combination of at least X out of Y listed characteristics. These characteristics include, if memory serves, things like ammo capacity (perhaps referring to the largest clip that fits?), whether or not it can take a bayonet, presumably whether it's semi-/full-auto, and so forth.
Don't expect to be able to legally import, say, a full-auto Kalashnikov or FN-FAL. IIRC, you probably can't legally import a semi-auto AK variant, either, and likewise semi-auto shotguns (ala the "Street Sweeper") are also banned for importation if memory serves.
It might be worth noting that...
A) This only applies to evidence relevant to finding the whereabouts of a fugitive from justice. A person only under investigation does not count. A person under arrest does not count. Evidence relevant to guilt does not count. Evidence requested must be relevant to finding a fugitive.
B) These are not secret -- in fact, they have to be reported (in number) to the House and Senate, at least for the next three years. In order to avoid disclosure to third parties, a Court must agree to one of various conditions, and "just because the AG says so" is not one of them. And judges DO get seriously, seriously angry at the Federal Government when they feel that the latter is abusing their court -- and the court can specify that nondisclosure is only temporary...
The court system is not being bypassed, folks.
But thanks for the alarmism. Without that, this just would not be Slashdot, no?
Not really. Keep in mind that this is apparently a custom design, not something just built around COTS foo. It may not even be remotely accessible depending upon design.
Would you ask that the FBI reveal the technical capabilities of its wiretapping methods, and how its bugs transmit information back to the operators (or how such information is collected, if it requires servicing a drop of some kind), so that the next Mafia capo tutti capo-wannabee can look out for such happenings?
Or would you ask that the NRO declassify the capabilities of US surveillance satellites, so that those who wish not to be observed know better how to camouflage?
Oh, and while we're at it, we might as well as the Russians for blueprints of all their ICBM designs, nuclear warheads, detonation and safety systems. And details of the security precautions and layouts of each installation. We're much safer knowing that anybody can learn how one might try to capture a thermonuclear device, and then smuggle it afar.
There are many, many details which have been successfully obscured. Just because many programmers lack the competence to design a remotely secure system, does not mean that any system that is secret is insecure, or that opening such a system is in the slightest appropriate.
Actually, murder can be a Federal crime -- the cardinal example might be murdering a postal worker, and thus interfering with the mail system.
The 14th amendment (IIRC, that's the one guaranteeing equal protection under the law) combined with the elastic clause also yields justification for civil rights law and Federal investigation, when the local authorities are unable or unwilling, such as when local authorities who also happened to be Klansmen conspired to murder civil rights workers. The intervention via the Airborne troopers escorting black students to school against the wishes of Gov. Faubus was another clearly justified case. Local corruption, such as that relating to a former Governor of Alaska, sometimes also require Federal jurisdiction for effective prosecution.
We do need Federal law enforcement for these reasons, plus for pretty much anything that clearly transcends the authority of a single state such as interstate smuggling operations or international investigations. The Founding Fathers chose to give jurisidiction over interstate commerce and international affairs to the Federal government for a reason, presumably related to their experiences with the weak government defined by the Articles of Confederation, and to avoid counterproductive silliness such as states taxing products from other states, or worse, making their own independent treaties and declarations of war. I an fairly sure that my state does not have a counterintelligence network capable of monitoring FSB infiltration on its own, should any FSB agents for whatever reason feel Pennsylvania merits their interest, and PA most probably does not have its own agents investigating bin Laden's network at the moment.
You are correct that it has indeed at times been stretched too far. Civil forfeiture law has been cited as one obvious problem, and has gotten some attention from Congress for its abuses. By no means is Federal law enforcement unjustified in all cases, however.
Many criminals aren't terribly clued, and few are careful to the extreme. The World Trade Center bombers come to mind as cardinal examples -- returning to claim a refund on the Ryder Truck wasn't the smoothest of possible moves.
There used to be a "Moron Muster" listing people who posted, publicly (on USENET, in plaintext) blatantly requesting pirated software (usually caught via a fake FTP w4r3z S1t3 announcement followed by a request for public "add me to the list" posts. Sure, they got added to a list...) The list was alarmingly large, but IIRC is no longer maintained.
The Algerian who got caught with explosives at the Canadian border 'round New Years -- apparently he or somebody in his cell made a pretty hefty mistake. Perhaps t'was infiltrated -- ISTR that once upon a time, a very, very large number of "members" of various extremist orgs like Weathermen, Klan spin-offs, and such, were actually Feds.
As for legality, well, that is a concern. Frankly, even for a "good cause" (counterrorism), I would not want to accept a precedent which said that existing statutes should be ignored when it is expedient to do so; it is too easy to cynically manufacture "good causes".
Consequently, current privacy guarantees should be maintained... and whether that is true may be based upon how good Carnivore's filtering system is. If the architecture guarantees that only specifically targetted communications will be visible to human observers (Ever. Not on tape; not shown on screen; but INVISIBLE as far as Carnivore's users and the users of its product are concerned), then it could be permissible. But ignoring existing Constitutional protections, or those granted by laws consistent with such, simply due to expedience is intolerable.
Foreign intelligence may mean gathering SIG/ELINT on foreigners either in or with connections in the US, as well. They'd have to be careful not to accidentally listen to unrelated conversations between citizens that just happen to be using the same line, which may be tricky at times.
You may want to capture e-mail going to saddam.hussein@yahoo.com (No, I didn't check to see whether that's a valid address...). Sure, he isn't guaranteed full protections under the law. But your system better not result in a human being ever accidentally reading mail sent to bclinton+monica@yahoo.com, so you have to be careful designing, implementing and using whatever devices and methods are needed. Plus, the ISP has certain rights, too...
I'd think they've more cynical than stupid. Right now, they need to maximize electoral votes, which means pandering to blocs of undecideds.
As one Dem. media chap said (on PBS after the second pres. debate), everybody knows that the "promises" made during a campaign are non-binding.
They're just trying to gain votes, for the most part -- although some of their stances ARE unpopular. (Try considering Bush's pledge to appoint strict constructionists. Then figure out how to reconcile the Dept. of Education with strict constructionism, considering that the only relevant clause is the elastic clause, IIRC, and it's hard to argue that the states are incapable of administering education systems while the Feds are not. But then try to convince the public to kill the department -- that'll cost you votes.)
They'd accuse each other of being from outer space if their research suggested it'd be a net plus.
The young are also a bit more idealistic and impressionable. From what I've seen, they're more willing to accept a utopian ideology, despite its impracticalities or impossibilities, and even waste their time propagandizing about it, or trying to set it in motion. Particularly when there is so much disinformation being propagated by those with political agendas, be they left or right.
Ever watch a 14-yr-old trying to defend Marxist theory online? It'd be hilarious if it weren't sad due to the lack of situational awareness that demonstrates. Lack of experience can hamper judgement, apparently.
Take a few clueless chaps who have the ego and audacity to think that *they* have the one true path, give 'em readily-available information about, say, primitive explosives design, and they can do a fair bit of damage to themselves and those around them. Grandiousity and an exaggerated sense of self-importance can lead to silly, bloody plans -- regardless of source, be it ideology or simply a desire for fame.
Recall the Columbine chaps? Their plans were so ridiculous as to include hijacking a jumbo jet and crashing it into NYC -- from a couple of chaps who apparently couldn't properly detonate a propane-based explosive when other's lives (or taking of them) depended on it. Very Hollywood, that; a plan for fatally stupid imbeciles.
Critics of the 'net have a valid point in that there is much information dangerous in the hands of violent fools -- and that, therefore, parents should be careful to mind their children. Right now, many families have -- and, many would say, need -- two working parents. That more than slightly reduces the time available to spend with them, which makes it more difficult to know if an unruly teen has been contributing to Stormfront or its ilk lately. To absolve the medium completely, with fun documents like a short guide to explosives easily found (that doc revealed via Google), is a bit disingenuous.
As someone who DOES look at such issues, and searches for law and fact rather than propaganda... you happen to be wrong.
*sigh*
There are two types of militia -- the Organized and the Unorganized. Most of the US-based Slashdotters are part of the latter, I'd wager, as defined by the US Code --
10 USC Sec. 311 (a) --
(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.
And if you're curious about the term 'arms', you can trace its history throughout precedents in English law, where t'was taken to mean primarily person-carried firearms (excluding, say, horse-drawn cannon and other large artillery), and it WAS indeed meant that the people retain their weapons on their property, not in arsenals.
Sounds like yet-another-episode of Russian space program blackmail (they've periodically asked for overseas funding for their part of the ISS, if memory serves).
Maybe if they could track down some of those funds that were laundered through the Bank of NY, or perhaps some of the Swiss accounts connected to the Yeltsin family, they could find a lot more than $7-$10 million.
Some of these just seem silly. Actually, a lot do...
.org isn't big enough for 'em?
.com. I'm not sure what that would be, short of legislative action, however, and that'd have to be done through treaties or agreements between all registrars...
".three33" ?
".air" -- what, now industry-specific domains?
".cool" -- Um, right.
".museum" -- why, oh why, would they need an entire TLD ? What,
A lot just seemed aimed at grabbing a piece of the pie -- especially coming from those corps that appear to be registrars, and choose a TLD named after themselves. And the folks at Name.Space, well, my thoughts on them aren't exactly polite...
But some are interesting.
".global" -- makes sense for multinats orgs/corps.
".mobile" -- Hrm. Perhaps.
".kids" -- Hm. If they have a decent TOS/AUP requirement to allow booting the obvious kiddie-porn domains...
".xxx" -- if there's an incentive for porn operators to use it, rather than just
I suppose the argument is that the RIAA might come out ahead, because a fair number of Napster's users might not actually buy the music that they download otherwise -- they'd just make do without.
But to figure that out (crunching all the variables) would be tricky (to do accurately, methinks), plus to accept this would be legitimizing the Napster approach (in particular, that Napster makes this offer only after being threatened with legal action); it might be tempting just to refuse all deals and shut 'em down to make the point that it's wiser to ask for permission first.
Read the article. These would basically be used to pay the RIAA members -- IOW, a form of licensing, just not per song download. The advocate suggests that $4.95/mo might generate half a million for the RIAA.
I really doubt it.
If they now claim to be able to do that (I didn't see this in the article...), then they probably should be able to figure out which MP3 it is... in which case, their ignorance defense goes completely out the window and instead it'd be argued that they're being willfully negligent.
Hmmm.
Black rubber-sheathed robotic tentacles attached to a Springboard module, flailing around -- now that would be suitably evil-looking...
Who doesn't want an autonomous, completely amoral robotic cephalopod in their shirt pocket, anyway? =)
Reimbursing for donations is illegal. Recall that the Dems had to give back quite a bit of money raised that way...
Winners occasionally use drugs as well.
Well, in certain states, yes. Some (many?) have laws patterned after a "Megan's Law", named after the victim of a repeat sex offender. In general, they stipulate that offenders have to register, and update information when they move and so forth. Whether this database is public or only available to law enforcement varies, methinks. Different states may also perhaps set different minimum offenses (a single molestation offense, versus one involving homicide, or whatever), or perhaps how long one has to keep registering .
AFAIK, there is no federal statute requiring this, and it at least was debated early on -- with opponents of the law arguing either that it was cruel and unusual (at least in the case of public databases, since that's basically a scarlet letter), led to vigilantism (innocent people have been mistaken for sex offenders, stalked and attacked), or otherwise argued that the prison time is sufficient and that no further penalty should be arbitrarily added by a legislature beyond that stipulated by a judge.
The opponents generally lost. It's hard to argue such an emotionally charged issue on the basis of dry concepts.