Not really. It would be common to say on march 3rd 1980 something happened. Its more condensed then saying on the 3rd of march, 1980 something happened.
You surrender or waive your right to a speedy trial any time you ask for a postponement of one of the procedures associated with it or sign a waiver of said right because you need the time for whatever reason. It is always the defendant that surrenders that right and it is never taken.
In July or August of 2013, Brown filed a motion for continuation due to being overwhelmed by discovery and an inability to prepare for his September 2013 trial day. He asked to postpone until Feb. 2014. The government's response to that motion actually argues against it because of his speedy trial rights in which the judge ultimately agreed was waived with the granting of the continuance.
I mean the goods that were illegally taken and possessed and illegally disseminated. You know exactly what I'm talking about which is why you are posting AC instead of having such idiocy assicited in any way that could follow you.
Participation in fraud and selling stolen goods is hardly capitalism.
well, to the idiots who don't know any better, maybe it is but in reality it is no different then me selling your car out from under you. I know, I know, information wants to be free, but giving something away for free isn't capitalism either.
Maybe you should look into the theory of capitalism a bit and this time read past the title and forward of the books.
Sigh.. Nixon was never impeached. You seem to have the rest of your post wrong so I'm not surprised you got that wrong too.
I don't see a first amendment issue anywhere. Possibly the gag order but those have long been held as constitutional. Speech is not without consequences. It appears he is getting due process. You may not like the due process he is getting, but you cannot say it doesn't exist. He also waived his right to a speedy trial and nothing has been shown to indicate it isn't a public trial. The trial hasn't commenced yet so we have yet to see on that. An no, there is no excessive bail imposed, his bail was refused because he posed a risk to the community and as a flight from justice. I guess threatening an FBI agent and his children along with hiding evidence from police doing a search say something in the eyes of the court.
Oh I know what you are saying about the frenzy.. that's likely why 13 counts were dropped- nothing but fodder to scare him and when it looked like it wasn't working, they decided not to bother.
I was watching the state supreme court on the Ohio channel the other day and saw a case in which one of the supreme court justices asked a prosecutor if the gun spec for a crime was mandatory or something the prosecutor can pile on for leverage in negotiating a plea agreement. To think that a supreme court justice advocating piling charges on someone to force them to plea guilty to something less instead of pursuing or ensuring justice.
I'm not the one you need to ask why to. It's the judge who came up with the rationale. It's sort of like making available is the same as distribution even though no distribution has been shown to of taken place.
It's common because the courts have upheld the practice.
United States v. McVeigh Jones v. Clinton
Those are two cases a gag order was used in whole or part and stood up to challenges on their constitutionality. I'm sure there are more should anyone bother looking.
The way you want it to be isn't always the way it is. It's like the second amendment, shall not be infringed seems to mean unless some contrived situation exists like living in a democrat controlled state.
The reasons judges give out gag orders is because information swarms taint juries. They become prejudiced before they can be selected for the jury unless you want a bunch of imbeciles on the jury who don't use computers and wouldn't know a hyperlink from hypertension or even who the current president or vice president is. That could screw the defense or prosecution up pretty badly.
Then China has just as much free speech as the US. The entire point is that government thugs aren't able to punish you for your speech.
You never heard the cliche about yelling fire in a crowded theater? You never knew people could be arrested, charged and convicted simply for threatening the president or most politicians with bodily harm or death?
Unless you meant people's actions in response to your speech, but in that case, people are responsible for their own actions. Punishing you for other people's actions because you said something is unjust and anti-free speech. You can pretend it isn't about the speech, but that doesn't even make sense.
No, I mean your own actions. And this isn't about speech although part of it was slightly connected to it. The guy was arrested for possessing stolen information (access device fraud concerning stolen credit card information) and hid two laptops (obstruction of justice charges) he knew the cops were looking for. Then before he was arrested, he threatened an FBI agent and the agents kids. That is when he was arrested and held without bail.
No, he is still being held for access device fraud (possessing stolen credit card info) and making threats to an FBI agent and his family. He is also on some obstruction charges connected to his hiding two laptops from a search.
The pasting of links and all are just in the middle of this making you think something that isn't really the case.
Free speech doesn't make you immune to consequences of that speech, as a journalist or other. People are imprisons for things like saying they are going to kill the president, inciting a riot seems to be a good one, of course there is slander and libel, disclosing national security information or classified information like the names of CIA agents, and you can be imprisoned for participating in a crime whether your speaking about it or whatever.
This isn't about the government saying you are busted for speaking, it is the government saying you have intimate knowledge of the crime, you are involved somehow. If that is the case, free speech isn't an issue here other then the intent of the judge to not pollute any potential juries by a gag order. That is something that has long been held are valid whether the prisoner is a journalist or not.
Licenses and certifications do not really mean squat. Remember back in the day when everyone got the MSCE or MSCA for windows 2000 and you could get it by studying a mail order book and passing 3 or 4 tests without ever having any working knowledge outside the books and the limited test software that came with it. Well, if you don't, it meant that a lot of people sporting a lot of qualifications were almost completely clueless when they had to do something that wasn't spelled out exactly like the book. That was a lot of things in normal working life.
Right now, I can go to the mayors office and pay a $125 fee without taking any tests and become a licensed sign installer in my town (well, it would take a little more then that, but I would be licensed without showing any aptitude or ability).
As for the sub prime mess, nothing was wrong with sub prime lending. It goes on every day and is a valid part of the financial sector. No amount of qualifications to a banker would change that. The problem with them were actual fraud perpetrated by some lenders in which they didn't care if the loans were ever paid back as long as they were being paid until they could sell them off buried inside some mortgage-backed security. A lot of lenders were prosecuted because of that and I mean people actually making loans, not just companies they worked for or with. No certification is going to remove outright fraud.
I don't know about you, but I have never met a porn site I needed to use SSL on or https. Are those where the really good porn is or something? I mean otherwise, there really isn't a need for a MITM attack to monitor a child's porn habits is there?
So I might think this stuff is used for other things. Perhaps it is to validate their own software or something that simple. Maybe they are MITM attacking when the kids check their bank statements to find who the truley rich and powerful families are in hopes of getting that new library or something. But porn is relatively simple to find and most filters are relatively easy to surmount.
That's all and good and all, but I think disclosing the information would be preferable so that little conspiracies about doom and gloom didn't come from the discovery of it.
In other words, if there was a valid reason, then it shouldn't be a secret. It should be a valid reason and disclosed in some obvious way.
No, alien abductions only seem to happen to the most stupid people you ever meet. There were way too many smart people on the plane to have the alien encounter (cause aliens are scared of smart people).
Well, what I was hoping the little story about the preacher would convey is that principles can be honored without it all going to the extreme. As if he would have taken the ride in the first place.
I agree about principles but think life would be so much better if the principles were argued before it resorts to facing jail time verses taking a plea. Often laws can be changed before it's abused or the abuse is noticed in practice. I was watching the ohio channel today and they were replaying a state supreme court case where one of the judges asked a prosecutor why the gun spec was added to a case and if it had to be there or if it was just a tool to entice a plea agreement. This should be very worrying when the state's highest court acknowledges laws that are "tools" to scare people into plea agreements instead of encouraging justice for all. The deck is highly stacked in these cases.
You can still act dumb or crazy because of your principles.
I'm reminded of a story about a preacher in a flood who relied on principle too much. The town got news that the river was flooding and everyone should evacuate. Along came a family in a station wagon and said hop in preacher, we will take you to safety. The preacher said no, the lord with look after me. Well, the roads flooded and along came a man in a boat who said, hop in preacher, we will take you to safety. Again, the preacher said no, the lord will look after me. The flood waters were higher then the second story of the church and getting hirer when along came a helicopter. A man in the helicopter said hold on preacher, we will send someone down to put a harness on you then we will take you to safety. The preacher said, that's ok, go help someone else, the lord will take care of me. Well, finally the flood waters consumed the preacher and when entering heaven, he asked why the lord didn't take care of him. The reply was what do you mean, he sent 3 different people 3 different times (a car, a boat, a helicopter) and you refused them.
Suppose an electrical fault cause the loss of coordinate transmission while it also lost navigation and the pilots were forces to fly manually and blindly for a while before they lost all control and the plane crashed. A jets under ideal conditions can glide around 70 or so miles from 35000 feet in the air.
So if the jet lost portions of the planes controls in stages, it could be quite a large search radius from the last known position and it could be close to the limit of the fuel range if they could still control the engines (doubtful as most everything is fly by wire and a catastrophic electronics failure likely would consume that too).
There is enough bandwidth, our control systems are still a bit off though. We use laser communications in some situations and radio in others but tanks have since the 90's been able to communicate and coordinate their weapons systems for a while now. This makes them more effective in picking targets so 4 out of 5 tanks aren't shooting the same target and invalid targets can be eliminated before a shot is fired.
The biggest problem is the automation of the drive units. We can't seem to get a real time terrain picture in a way that the tanks can auto pilot around on or relay to an operator. This is an enormous task compared to flying a drone that doesn't have to deal with obstacles in or on the ground that can change in a matter of seconds in a combat situation.
Of course that is changing a bit with work done by DARPA and their autonomous challenges but as of now, it makes them a sitting duck to often trying to negotiate terrain. But the weapons systems have had the bandwidth for a while now and can pretty much pick the target, aim and fire while moving at great speeds with little assistance from a human. It's quite amazing really.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. It would be common to say on march 3rd 1980 something happened. Its more condensed then saying on the 3rd of march, 1980 something happened.
Liar, you don't have a girlfriend and even if you did, i specifically heard you say "if i cannot fry it, i aint eating it" just the other day.
It can't be a problem since the delay in the trial wasat the request of the defendant.
You surrender or waive your right to a speedy trial any time you ask for a postponement of one of the procedures associated with it or sign a waiver of said right because you need the time for whatever reason. It is always the defendant that surrenders that right and it is never taken.
In July or August of 2013, Brown filed a motion for continuation due to being overwhelmed by discovery and an inability to prepare for his September 2013 trial day. He asked to postpone until Feb. 2014. The government's response to that motion actually argues against it because of his speedy trial rights in which the judge ultimately agreed was waived with the granting of the continuance.
I mean the goods that were illegally taken and possessed and illegally disseminated. You know exactly what I'm talking about which is why you are posting AC instead of having such idiocy assicited in any way that could follow you.
Participation in fraud and selling stolen goods is hardly capitalism.
well, to the idiots who don't know any better, maybe it is but in reality it is no different then me selling your car out from under you. I know, I know, information wants to be free, but giving something away for free isn't capitalism either.
Maybe you should look into the theory of capitalism a bit and this time read past the title and forward of the books.
He surrendered that right himself. Or his lawyer did for him when they asked for the first extension.
Sigh.. Nixon was never impeached. You seem to have the rest of your post wrong so I'm not surprised you got that wrong too.
I don't see a first amendment issue anywhere. Possibly the gag order but those have long been held as constitutional. Speech is not without consequences. It appears he is getting due process. You may not like the due process he is getting, but you cannot say it doesn't exist. He also waived his right to a speedy trial and nothing has been shown to indicate it isn't a public trial. The trial hasn't commenced yet so we have yet to see on that. An no, there is no excessive bail imposed, his bail was refused because he posed a risk to the community and as a flight from justice. I guess threatening an FBI agent and his children along with hiding evidence from police doing a search say something in the eyes of the court.
Oh I know what you are saying about the frenzy.. that's likely why 13 counts were dropped- nothing but fodder to scare him and when it looked like it wasn't working, they decided not to bother.
I was watching the state supreme court on the Ohio channel the other day and saw a case in which one of the supreme court justices asked a prosecutor if the gun spec for a crime was mandatory or something the prosecutor can pile on for leverage in negotiating a plea agreement. To think that a supreme court justice advocating piling charges on someone to force them to plea guilty to something less instead of pursuing or ensuring justice.
I'm not the one you need to ask why to. It's the judge who came up with the rationale. It's sort of like making available is the same as distribution even though no distribution has been shown to of taken place.
It's common because the courts have upheld the practice.
United States v. McVeigh
Jones v. Clinton
Those are two cases a gag order was used in whole or part and stood up to challenges on their constitutionality. I'm sure there are more should anyone bother looking.
The way you want it to be isn't always the way it is. It's like the second amendment, shall not be infringed seems to mean unless some contrived situation exists like living in a democrat controlled state.
The reasons judges give out gag orders is because information swarms taint juries. They become prejudiced before they can be selected for the jury unless you want a bunch of imbeciles on the jury who don't use computers and wouldn't know a hyperlink from hypertension or even who the current president or vice president is. That could screw the defense or prosecution up pretty badly.
You never heard the cliche about yelling fire in a crowded theater? You never knew people could be arrested, charged and convicted simply for threatening the president or most politicians with bodily harm or death?
No, I mean your own actions. And this isn't about speech although part of it was slightly connected to it. The guy was arrested for possessing stolen information (access device fraud concerning stolen credit card information) and hid two laptops (obstruction of justice charges) he knew the cops were looking for. Then before he was arrested, he threatened an FBI agent and the agents kids. That is when he was arrested and held without bail.
No, he is still being held for access device fraud (possessing stolen credit card info) and making threats to an FBI agent and his family. He is also on some obstruction charges connected to his hiding two laptops from a search.
The pasting of links and all are just in the middle of this making you think something that isn't really the case.
What exactly are those?
I mean which ones exactly. Denying someone bail is pretty common. Gag orders are pretty common. So what exactly is being violated here?
Wow.. I never noticed google images was https.
Thanks for pointing it out. I stand corrected.
Free speech doesn't make you immune to consequences of that speech, as a journalist or other. People are imprisons for things like saying they are going to kill the president, inciting a riot seems to be a good one, of course there is slander and libel, disclosing national security information or classified information like the names of CIA agents, and you can be imprisoned for participating in a crime whether your speaking about it or whatever.
This isn't about the government saying you are busted for speaking, it is the government saying you have intimate knowledge of the crime, you are involved somehow. If that is the case, free speech isn't an issue here other then the intent of the judge to not pollute any potential juries by a gag order. That is something that has long been held are valid whether the prisoner is a journalist or not.
Licenses and certifications do not really mean squat. Remember back in the day when everyone got the MSCE or MSCA for windows 2000 and you could get it by studying a mail order book and passing 3 or 4 tests without ever having any working knowledge outside the books and the limited test software that came with it. Well, if you don't, it meant that a lot of people sporting a lot of qualifications were almost completely clueless when they had to do something that wasn't spelled out exactly like the book. That was a lot of things in normal working life.
Right now, I can go to the mayors office and pay a $125 fee without taking any tests and become a licensed sign installer in my town (well, it would take a little more then that, but I would be licensed without showing any aptitude or ability).
As for the sub prime mess, nothing was wrong with sub prime lending. It goes on every day and is a valid part of the financial sector. No amount of qualifications to a banker would change that. The problem with them were actual fraud perpetrated by some lenders in which they didn't care if the loans were ever paid back as long as they were being paid until they could sell them off buried inside some mortgage-backed security. A lot of lenders were prosecuted because of that and I mean people actually making loans, not just companies they worked for or with. No certification is going to remove outright fraud.
I don't know about you, but I have never met a porn site I needed to use SSL on or https. Are those where the really good porn is or something? I mean otherwise, there really isn't a need for a MITM attack to monitor a child's porn habits is there?
So I might think this stuff is used for other things. Perhaps it is to validate their own software or something that simple. Maybe they are MITM attacking when the kids check their bank statements to find who the truley rich and powerful families are in hopes of getting that new library or something. But porn is relatively simple to find and most filters are relatively easy to surmount.
That's all and good and all, but I think disclosing the information would be preferable so that little conspiracies about doom and gloom didn't come from the discovery of it.
In other words, if there was a valid reason, then it shouldn't be a secret. It should be a valid reason and disclosed in some obvious way.
No, alien abductions only seem to happen to the most stupid people you ever meet. There were way too many smart people on the plane to have the alien encounter (cause aliens are scared of smart people).
Well, what I was hoping the little story about the preacher would convey is that principles can be honored without it all going to the extreme. As if he would have taken the ride in the first place.
I agree about principles but think life would be so much better if the principles were argued before it resorts to facing jail time verses taking a plea. Often laws can be changed before it's abused or the abuse is noticed in practice. I was watching the ohio channel today and they were replaying a state supreme court case where one of the judges asked a prosecutor why the gun spec was added to a case and if it had to be there or if it was just a tool to entice a plea agreement. This should be very worrying when the state's highest court acknowledges laws that are "tools" to scare people into plea agreements instead of encouraging justice for all. The deck is highly stacked in these cases.
You can still act dumb or crazy because of your principles.
I'm reminded of a story about a preacher in a flood who relied on principle too much. The town got news that the river was flooding and everyone should evacuate. Along came a family in a station wagon and said hop in preacher, we will take you to safety. The preacher said no, the lord with look after me. Well, the roads flooded and along came a man in a boat who said, hop in preacher, we will take you to safety. Again, the preacher said no, the lord will look after me. The flood waters were higher then the second story of the church and getting hirer when along came a helicopter. A man in the helicopter said hold on preacher, we will send someone down to put a harness on you then we will take you to safety. The preacher said, that's ok, go help someone else, the lord will take care of me. Well, finally the flood waters consumed the preacher and when entering heaven, he asked why the lord didn't take care of him. The reply was what do you mean, he sent 3 different people 3 different times (a car, a boat, a helicopter) and you refused them.
Sometimes principle has too high of a price.
It could be more complicated then that.
Suppose an electrical fault cause the loss of coordinate transmission while it also lost navigation and the pilots were forces to fly manually and blindly for a while before they lost all control and the plane crashed. A jets under ideal conditions can glide around 70 or so miles from 35000 feet in the air.
So if the jet lost portions of the planes controls in stages, it could be quite a large search radius from the last known position and it could be close to the limit of the fuel range if they could still control the engines (doubtful as most everything is fly by wire and a catastrophic electronics failure likely would consume that too).
There is enough bandwidth, our control systems are still a bit off though. We use laser communications in some situations and radio in others but tanks have since the 90's been able to communicate and coordinate their weapons systems for a while now. This makes them more effective in picking targets so 4 out of 5 tanks aren't shooting the same target and invalid targets can be eliminated before a shot is fired.
The biggest problem is the automation of the drive units. We can't seem to get a real time terrain picture in a way that the tanks can auto pilot around on or relay to an operator. This is an enormous task compared to flying a drone that doesn't have to deal with obstacles in or on the ground that can change in a matter of seconds in a combat situation.
Of course that is changing a bit with work done by DARPA and their autonomous challenges but as of now, it makes them a sitting duck to often trying to negotiate terrain. But the weapons systems have had the bandwidth for a while now and can pretty much pick the target, aim and fire while moving at great speeds with little assistance from a human. It's quite amazing really.