Molest is a subjective term you are using purposely to inflame the debate.
Would you also consider a doctor giving a thirteen year old (boy or girl) a physical an act of molestation? Would you consider a 16 year old Girl getting a pap smear or a 17 year old boy getting rodded for a venereal disease a molestation?
No, of course you wouldn't. That's most likely because molestation has an element of sexual gratification involved with it. And regardless of how much you are gratified by feeling children or people, the act of a security pat down is not a molestation. It could be but until you show that people are being sexually gratified by the act, your basis is nothing more then imagined (or perhaps self reflection).
Now this doesn't mean I support of encourage the new pat downs or even remotely suggest their use should be continued. But it does mean that I do not think it's appropriate to make purely inflammatory accusations based on nothing but what's in your mind. It's one thing that this is bad enough, it's another when you belittle it by making baseless accusations that defy the dictionary and reality of what is happening.
Yea, I would be surprised. This type of tech would be coming from university research first with a patent application of some sort to follow. New like something that can do this would be too important for the Mass media to ignore so there would likely be a public outcry that would stop any potential profits from any attempts to sell something other then cures.
That and about the only reason we accept bio-engineered/GM foods either being sold to us or as a feed stock for food we eat is the somewhat flaky assurances that it wouldn't effect us. If that was ever to end, there would likely be a revolt on the scale of bankruptcy for many companies. Right now, it's just the uber conscious that are aware- if something like that was possible, it would be everyone especially the poor and more ignorant of the population who would see it as more then an advertising attempt, and something seriously cynical.
Now, I might agree that someone might suggest or try to use it to make more money with a consumable product first. I just see that exploding in their faces really quickly. If 25% of the country can force the FDA to require labeling for certain GM foods, just think what would happen if 50% or better started complaining. I mean look at the small percentage of support for the bans on transfats and how many places they are banned. It's not like you cannot get transfats anymore, you just can't buy them at restaurants and certain grocery stores anymore.
And if it was, then someone could genetically engineer you from the ability to get ill from cancer or by virus or other infection by adding it to the food supply. Yes, if it was possible, I could think of a ton of more productive uses then suggesting which flavor of Doritos or cola to purchase.
The most typical is software co-reliance in which some app won't work with the alternative. You see this listed as to why certain people can't migrate to Linux which is Open source/gpl too. Retraining and adjustments often cost money which is another thing that can stop people from having a choice. I have a law firm customer that has to support a certain piece of software because it's what all new hires are basically trained on and what had been in use forever. It would take too long to move the data and train them on another software system even though they exist (being GPLed or not).
There are a number of reasons why someone could be locked in to some piece of software. I couldn't move one firm to OO.org because of macros/formulas in spreadsheets that wouldn't transfer and run properly either when opened in Open office or after being saved in open office. And seeing how OO.org is LGPL'd it's not like they can't slip something proprietary or binding into it that causes similar situations.
What I'm saying is that if that other path isn't available because no one has any interest in an alternative, you are effectively locked in. And if the lock in happens quickly enough, it may be possible that you can be locked in before an alternate is available.
Having other options does not mean you are not locked in. You can be locked in because of financial constrains, because of interoperability constraints, and other things. And this can all be true regardless of another clone being available or not depending on the circumstances.
Showing interest in alternatives early allows support for those alternatives to build ensuring an alternative is available before you are locked in. This also sends the message that there is a choice and that people can take traditional vendor lockin.
GPL or better does not mean no lockins or stupid shit. At best, it means you can see it coming and choose to take another path down the road if one exists. Making that decision right now means that A:, a more popular and probably better developed alternative would already be in existence, and B:, it would send notice to Oracle that they can lose any lockin they perceive they could have if they screw up too bad.
In the end, people making the jump now, ensure that we have options later as well as pose a threat that limits actions in the future.
If it were that you were granted the right of "freedom of religion"
You aren't really granted a right. You always have the right in a free environment, governments and people just take them away. Our constitution attempts to stop the government from being able to take the right away, but it doesn't give any right- those presumably already exist.
I know enough to know that your wrong on this. Halliburton does not supply the military with technology. They provide services with their own technology and/or the military's existing technology. Replacing Halliburton is as simple as getting someone else to do the same. There is nothing that Halliburton did that isn't able to be replicated by any other company except maybe for the scale in which it was done. This one fact BTW, was the only reason why Halliburton was on the no bid contract in the first place.
If Kernell downloaded all of her email, then why don't we just go read the email about taxes and the Governor of CA? Oh, right. Because you're wrong, Kernell only screenshotted a few emails and grabbed a page of subjects, and that's it.
It was posted to wikileaks. And yes, that's all that was there at the time. And no, Kernell didn't have to download all the email, he posted the new password online and allowed others to have access to the site.
And if all this information is still widely available, as you say...then did Kernell actually destroy evidence? He only deleted his copy.
Are you really that stupid? Yes Kernel actually did delete evidence. What do you think the purpose of wiping his hard drive was for? And no, the emails weren't the only evidence, cookies and other traces of his activities were on the computer too. And in this case, the evidence was if the person obtained unlawful access to a computer account- not if Palin used personal email for government work.
If you can't keep someone as fundamental- yet as simple- as that together, you probably have absolutely no right talking about the subject.
mmmm...salty. I use my phone to handle both my personal email account and my business account, without any issues at all.
Well, good for you. And if everone in this world was just like you, we wouldn't have any war, automobile accidents, or anything wrong in the world too. The simple reality is that not everyone is like you so stop pretending they are.
And when I log into my Outlook at work, I see my work emails. And when I log into my personal email account, I see my personal emails. Usually, when people log into their email applications, they're doing so in order to look at their email.And if that was the only way to set up a mail client, I would be with you. But it's not the only way so don't pretend it is. You can set both emails to be checked at the same time so neither account needs to be logged out of. Stop thinking everything is how you have your shit set up. It may be a better set up, but as we discussed earlier, not everyone is you.
And let me guess, Outlook was being used for both personal and government emails, huh? (not that you would know, but you will certainly try to use that as a defense). Does Outlook also suffer from this "hiding the address" that her Blackberry does?
Dude, what are you? Some idiot that has never set up an email account before? Yes outlook can be set up to use nicknames instead of the email addresses. In fact, it's the typical default. And yes, it's a feature, not something anything suffers from. You need to get out of your moms basement a little more if your going to talk about shit that's pretty common knowledge on a geek site.
You want to tell me that she had no idea a work email went through her Yahoo? Gimme a break. it might have been an innocent mistake to start, but you know she would have seen it sooner or later. She just didn't care. It was just a stupid sunshine law and she thought she was above abiding by it because it was just so troublesome to do things according to the law.
SO what if it was? The law has absolutely no penalty for it even if it happened only the way you set out and prescribe. So what? The only thing that can be done as a penalty is for any legislation talked about in it to be over turned. But then again, they can just reenact it at any time. So fucking what? I mean you are acting like this is the coming of the four horses of the Apocalypse and the end of the world is near. It's not, and the work emails that did get mixed up was barely worked related.
Regarding "about 15 messages", I would be surprised if she can go all that time sending more than 15 personal emails after each work email
That's probably true, but it wasn't unusual in the past for people in these positions or levels of positions to not get into trouble for what amounts to incompetence. There seems to be a level of compassion for the incompetent when they are the governor or president or in between to some degree.
Many states have laws that require a felony conviction to carry at least one year and one day in prison.
Yes, but this is known before sentencing is imposed or criminal prosecution commences. That was my point, the sentence doesn't dictate if it's a felony or not.
Some states also have 'wobblers' which are charged as a felony but become a misdemeanor if the sentence is a year or less.
There are a few in the federal level too. However, it's not up to the whim of a judge to determine if this happens or not, it's sentencing guidlines and mitigating factors that challenge the mens rea the impose this. And all this is laid out in law before criminal prosecution is imposed. A judge simply does not have the option to say two of the three people charged with the same charge who committed the same acts will get a misdemeanor charge and the third will get a felony charge. Their individual actions involved in committing the crime will determine this.
There is an exception however. It's not important with this case since it wasn't even brought up. The government can ask for, and the judge would then be allowed to, reduce sentencing below the sentencing guidelines and/or reduce felonies to misdemeanors based around the convict's cooperation in the investigation or willingness to testify against another person or offer incriminating evidence that solves a larger problem. But these are the exceptions to the rule and always require special and specific circumstances.
This was a federal case so I don't know how things work in this specific case. The statute [cornell.edu] the defendant was convicted under doesn't cite a minimum penalty.
It goes by the maximum sentence available under the statute if it isn't specifically spelled out. So if the max sentence is 20 years, it would be a class C felony independent of an actual sentence of 12 weeks or whatever. The only time it would differ would be in one of the special exceptions. The exceptions are after the fact BTW.
And you're right. We will never know. Because Palin destroyed evidence when she deleted her email accounts. Funny how only Kernell is serving time for destroying evidence...
Wow, do you just invent whatever you need to in order to support your mad Ideology? I mean seriously, this is not anything resembling the truth. Also, the Alaskan AG investigated it and said there was nothing outside an innocent mistake associated with trying to maintain two email accounts on the same devices. She didn't delete anything, and even if she did, it wouldn't matter because the Kernel dude downloaded/screenshot all her email and posted it on the internet. You can still find it with a simple google search.
So you're telling me that she never, ever logged into her personal Yahoo email account from a computer? I highly doubt she typed all her personal emails on that tiny Blackberry keyboard. Sooner or later, you know that she logged into Yahoo from a PC. And when she did, she would see plain as day that some of her official government business was being conducted with the wrong email address.
You know, Yahoo doesn't need a web browser to compose and send emails. You can use things called Email client applications. There are lots of them available and some are called outlook, outlook express, thunderbird, and so on. I'm sure Palin logged into yahoo from a computer, but I'm more certain that she didn't always have to. And with the limited amount of cross over information, it doesn't mean she would automagically see the mistakes. When I log into Yahoo from remote computers, I only get about 15 or so messages displayed at a time.
If you think the "same phone" excuse passes the sniff test, then you need to buy yourself some Sudafed.
Perhaps you should actually look into the situation and compare reality to whatever you have cooked up in your mind. There wasn't many cross over emails, and they all were emails to or from people she also had a personal relationship with outside of the governorship.
Well, it can be partisanship because of ideological reasoning. In other words, Obama set in the stimulus a tax rebate and automatically said that the republicans would support it. When they didn't, he blamed it on them being partisan. But the reality of it was that the rebate wasn't supported because it didn't do anything economical sound in the short term, and being a single rebate meant it wouldn't be around long enough to have an impact in the long term. We figured this out with Bush and his retroactive tax cuts that ended up in giving a rebate too.
Here is the thing. Don't be surprised if your kid thinks you are a dork who doesn't get it because he told you he wanted a vanilla ice cream cone with chocolate topping and you gave him a chocolate ice cream cone with vanilla marshmallow toppings. Granted, it's an ice cream cone, but it's nothing similar to what was wanted. Automatically saying it's what he wants is sort of like completely not getting it but then attempting to claim you do. In other words, Obama's approach of saying "Here, it's a tax cut, you should be happy" is not only partisan, but completely different from asking what they wanted and actually working with them on giving them something close.
I mean seriously think about this. Suppose you needed an AMD processor to fix the company server and the boss decided to grab an Intel processor because it fit his needs better? Would it be partisan of you to object to the Intel Processor when the boss completely ignored your needs and just imposed the idea that something else at his whim would be sufficient?
I guess the big distinction is that the federal government is supposed to only do it in relation to terrorist investigations and they are supposed to only release information pertinent to an arrest and conviction. This guy was different as it didn't limit the actions to a gross need to keep people safe and released everything possible outside of any need to prosecute or arrest anyone.
In other words, the two actions are not comparable because of artificial limitations put in place on one party in the actions. It's like saying your 5 year old brother is a world series baseball player because he's good a T-ball. granted, they are doing similar things, but they are more then technically different.
But that still doesn't change what he said, the doing illegal activities wasn't a defense. The judge still found it a violation of law which upheld the charges. The claim of exposing wrongdoings was just a defense.
As others responded, it's not the job of the court to uphold public opinion. What is their job is to regulate and solve disputes within their jurisdiction with public law or contractual agreements using existing law and precedents. Their decisions can only be viewed within the scope of which it was detailed with.
If public opinion thinks it's a bad situation, then the public has the ability to change the laws (or pressure lawmakers to change them) which would force future decisions to be in line with public opinion. But unless the ruling goes against existing law or precedent, it's just a ruling you don't agree with.
The crime is already a felony or not. The judge cannot simply make up sentencing terms at his whim. These all need to be laid out in law before you even violate the laws otherwise it violated the post facto, and fair and impartial, clauses of the constitution.
You simply cannot have a law that says If you do X, you can be charge with a crime that will be determined after your trial. What you have is laws saying if you do X, it's a misdemeanor or a felony and then what degree. The law can also say if Y or Z was a factor, it can be a misdemeanor or felony of some greater degree or even jump from a misdemeanor to a felony so that X+Y or X+Z could be a felony. If it's a class E felony, then the minimum sentencing is 1 year.
IF you only get the minimum, you are not eligible for accrued sentence reductions like time served for good behavior or whatever. This is why you see 1 year plus one day. It's not the minimum and allows good behavior, work system rehabilitation credits and so on. With those, it's possible that half to one third of his sentence could be negated completely as time served being counted in excess of the physical time due to participation in some rehab program or because of his conduct while incarcerated.
The sentencing doesn't determine if it's a felony or not, the sentence is determined because of it it's a felony or not. You have cause and effect backwards.
The length of sentence imposed does not determine if something is a felony or not. That's done by statute.
You could get into a fight with three people and get the maximum sentence for three first degree misdemeanor assaults (6 months *3) and serve an effective 18 month or a year and a half and not be charged with one felony. You can also be charge with and convicted of a felony and not be sentenced to a complete year for the single offense. The offense is generally listed as a felony or misdemeanor by it's sentencing guidelines in which the year long definitions are in play. But all this is determined well before you reach a trial and is not dependent on your sentence post conviction at all. You are either convicted of a felony offense or not. It's not up to the judge to decide at the last minute if it's going to be a felony or not. You have a constitutional right to know what you are being charged with before you are on trial. This is why some laws can be misdemeanor or felony offenses depending on the mens rea and you will be charged with both and the judge or jury can pick which one you are convicted of.
They probably did - which is sort of ironic, considering the reason for the scandal. The not-a-real-hack revealed that Palin had been using her private Yahoo email account to conduct government business in order to hide from FOIA requests and such accountability.
Well, using it to get around FOIA requests is a but misleading. It was never proven that was the reason. It could have been the result but the laws on it do not take the result as the reason automagically. It was argued by Palin and staff that it was a messup detailing that the blackberries used had both personal and government emails attached to them and by selecting a contact, it showed the name of the contact not the email address and it was simply a mistake that personal email addresses ended up being used. This was supported by numerous other politicians as well as businesses claiming they have realized the same problems in the past or present.
Stating the idea that the use was in order to to hide from FOIA requests and such accountability is nothing but speculation and inferred opinion. It could be but all official investigations into it determined that it was an accidental oversight caused by the complexity of having both accounts on the same phones. You may want to believe otherwise, but you shouldn't state your opinion as fact when it is little more then your opinion.
There was an old lady that lived in a shoe, she used open source software but got sued. When she told the judge she couldn't afford the settlement for patent infringement, He said you have a house, your defense has a flattened impingement. She said take everything I own, it won't be enough, you can kiss my ass for the rest, if you don't like it, that's just tough.
Don't forget, decisions you don't like does not automatically make them bad decisions. And decisions argued by incompetent defense or prosecutors don't necessarily make them bad decisions- just bad argument or defense of the case at hand.
The R&D hasn't stopped. In fact, it's pretty much just as flat as it always has been with a few minor exception. If the government stayed on the alternative kick from the 1970's, we wouldn't be much different then we are now.
The problem isn't really an R&D problem but a pure science problem as we are close to the limits of anything that is affordable with the existing fundamentals. Solar power has been around since the late 1800's, wind power since the early 1900's, and water power has been around in some form or another for several centuries. These aren't technologies that were introduced in the 60's, dropped out of existent in the 80's only to re-emerge in the 2000's.
You can't completely claim it was about trying to kill Bin Laden. The problem here is that Clinton- well people within his administration, let Bin Laden go on a previous encounter where his death would have been certain.
In fact, Clinton's method of operation of the time was to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue which is why it was so out of character that this act in the Sudan gets marked as a cover-up. If he had been actively attempting to kill Bin Laden, no one would have taking the timing and the events to mean anything other then what it was. But alas, that wasn't the case, the time suggested that the sudden temporary change in direction was actually motivated by other circumstance surrounding the president.
no. with the numbers and conditions for balance u.s. senate has, just flipping 1-2 senators to the other side will change things. as frequently happens. given even the side switches of some senators in the recent years, it is evident that any party can sway a senator to their side even if he doesnt totally switch sides.
And your point is what? I mean it doesn't disprove or remove anything that I said. Maybe your statement may be in the lines more like, "the president can't put just any cuckoo into a position under him as he has to convince his own party to accept them". but if his party controls the senate, he has to do nothing to appease the other party.
is it ? or, did republicans try to weer off the blame in the last moment before the elections so the mud wouldnt stick, after years of doing business with them.
I guess in your rush to pin everything on one side, you are missing the entire point. Halliburton did business with the government long before the republicans were in power and long after they were out. The only blame to assign here is what you have made up in your mind in order to fault the republicans. None of the democrats had attempted to stop Halliburton from doing business with the government outside of spewing crap to incite useful idiots like you. And yes, they have had more then enough opportunity to do something by now.
yes they are, and they will be contracting a long time too. when an army is locked into equipment, software it is locked into it for a long time. decades.
Wrong, there is nothing technically locking the military into using Halliburton outside of it's size and capabilities and Halliburton winning the bids on competitive advantage, not vendor lock ins. You are completely making this crap up as Halliburton never supplied the military with anything that dependent. Halliburton is a mobile services company specializing in oil field services- not a weapons system developer or munitions supplier or anything of the sorts.
you apparently havent grasped the concept yet. let me put it in a context; when ussr went poof, turkey wanted to buy soviet equipment to supplement the army, because there were very good purpose specific equipment there. but, after research, it was found that the equipment would be too incompatible with the existing nato standards that, there would be an entire separate chain of supplies, spare parts, qualified personnel would have to be created in order to maintain them. so, the project was canceled.
And perhaps you don't grasp it yet. Hallitburton did nothing that required NATO standards and/or supply chains to be in place. Plus, even if they did, Halliburton would have already been NATO standards compliant seeing how they were a US company working for the US government. Worse yet, Standards are in place simply to avoid the shit you mentioned with Turkey and Russian parts. In other words, even if they were involved in something that caused Standards to kick in, the entire reason for standards in the first place is so the stuff can be changed out and inter-operate from a number of different countries or companies.
such is the way with military. you can contract out any kind of lame task like logistics, catering to any given party. but, the more locked in contracts require the same standards. that goes for similar technology bloc too - if you buy eurofighter, you are locked into it for at least two decades.
haliburton didnt sell any aircraft to u.s. but heaven knows what kind of equipment was sold and deals made in secret. due to terms of these, and to get favorable conditions for renewal, it is possible that the administrations to come may have to give them bones here and now, like the smaller bit of logistic contract youre talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
Molest is a subjective term you are using purposely to inflame the debate.
Would you also consider a doctor giving a thirteen year old (boy or girl) a physical an act of molestation? Would you consider a 16 year old Girl getting a pap smear or a 17 year old boy getting rodded for a venereal disease a molestation?
No, of course you wouldn't. That's most likely because molestation has an element of sexual gratification involved with it. And regardless of how much you are gratified by feeling children or people, the act of a security pat down is not a molestation. It could be but until you show that people are being sexually gratified by the act, your basis is nothing more then imagined (or perhaps self reflection).
Now this doesn't mean I support of encourage the new pat downs or even remotely suggest their use should be continued. But it does mean that I do not think it's appropriate to make purely inflammatory accusations based on nothing but what's in your mind. It's one thing that this is bad enough, it's another when you belittle it by making baseless accusations that defy the dictionary and reality of what is happening.
Yea, I would be surprised. This type of tech would be coming from university research first with a patent application of some sort to follow. New like something that can do this would be too important for the Mass media to ignore so there would likely be a public outcry that would stop any potential profits from any attempts to sell something other then cures.
That and about the only reason we accept bio-engineered/GM foods either being sold to us or as a feed stock for food we eat is the somewhat flaky assurances that it wouldn't effect us. If that was ever to end, there would likely be a revolt on the scale of bankruptcy for many companies. Right now, it's just the uber conscious that are aware- if something like that was possible, it would be everyone especially the poor and more ignorant of the population who would see it as more then an advertising attempt, and something seriously cynical.
Now, I might agree that someone might suggest or try to use it to make more money with a consumable product first. I just see that exploding in their faces really quickly. If 25% of the country can force the FDA to require labeling for certain GM foods, just think what would happen if 50% or better started complaining. I mean look at the small percentage of support for the bans on transfats and how many places they are banned. It's not like you cannot get transfats anymore, you just can't buy them at restaurants and certain grocery stores anymore.
Hay now, that's not what my "power words to impress your coworkers and boss" book says....
Come to think about it, Maybe I was thinking about Shipoopi instead?
That's not really technically feasible.
And if it was, then someone could genetically engineer you from the ability to get ill from cancer or by virus or other infection by adding it to the food supply. Yes, if it was possible, I could think of a ton of more productive uses then suggesting which flavor of Doritos or cola to purchase.
Sure, in certain circumstances.
The most typical is software co-reliance in which some app won't work with the alternative. You see this listed as to why certain people can't migrate to Linux which is Open source/gpl too. Retraining and adjustments often cost money which is another thing that can stop people from having a choice. I have a law firm customer that has to support a certain piece of software because it's what all new hires are basically trained on and what had been in use forever. It would take too long to move the data and train them on another software system even though they exist (being GPLed or not).
There are a number of reasons why someone could be locked in to some piece of software. I couldn't move one firm to OO.org because of macros/formulas in spreadsheets that wouldn't transfer and run properly either when opened in Open office or after being saved in open office. And seeing how OO.org is LGPL'd it's not like they can't slip something proprietary or binding into it that causes similar situations.
What I'm saying is that if that other path isn't available because no one has any interest in an alternative, you are effectively locked in. And if the lock in happens quickly enough, it may be possible that you can be locked in before an alternate is available.
Having other options does not mean you are not locked in. You can be locked in because of financial constrains, because of interoperability constraints, and other things. And this can all be true regardless of another clone being available or not depending on the circumstances.
Showing interest in alternatives early allows support for those alternatives to build ensuring an alternative is available before you are locked in. This also sends the message that there is a choice and that people can take traditional vendor lockin.
GPL or better does not mean no lockins or stupid shit. At best, it means you can see it coming and choose to take another path down the road if one exists. Making that decision right now means that A:, a more popular and probably better developed alternative would already be in existence, and B:, it would send notice to Oracle that they can lose any lockin they perceive they could have if they screw up too bad.
In the end, people making the jump now, ensure that we have options later as well as pose a threat that limits actions in the future.
You aren't really granted a right. You always have the right in a free environment, governments and people just take them away. Our constitution attempts to stop the government from being able to take the right away, but it doesn't give any right- those presumably already exist.
I know enough to know that your wrong on this. Halliburton does not supply the military with technology. They provide services with their own technology and/or the military's existing technology. Replacing Halliburton is as simple as getting someone else to do the same. There is nothing that Halliburton did that isn't able to be replicated by any other company except maybe for the scale in which it was done. This one fact BTW, was the only reason why Halliburton was on the no bid contract in the first place.
It was posted to wikileaks. And yes, that's all that was there at the time. And no, Kernell didn't have to download all the email, he posted the new password online and allowed others to have access to the site.
Are you really that stupid? Yes Kernel actually did delete evidence. What do you think the purpose of wiping his hard drive was for? And no, the emails weren't the only evidence, cookies and other traces of his activities were on the computer too. And in this case, the evidence was if the person obtained unlawful access to a computer account- not if Palin used personal email for government work.
If you can't keep someone as fundamental- yet as simple- as that together, you probably have absolutely no right talking about the subject.
mmmm...salty. I use my phone to handle both my personal email account and my business account, without any issues at all.
Well, good for you. And if everone in this world was just like you, we wouldn't have any war, automobile accidents, or anything wrong in the world too. The simple reality is that not everyone is like you so stop pretending they are.
That's probably true, but it wasn't unusual in the past for people in these positions or levels of positions to not get into trouble for what amounts to incompetence. There seems to be a level of compassion for the incompetent when they are the governor or president or in between to some degree.
Yes, but this is known before sentencing is imposed or criminal prosecution commences. That was my point, the sentence doesn't dictate if it's a felony or not.
There are a few in the federal level too. However, it's not up to the whim of a judge to determine if this happens or not, it's sentencing guidlines and mitigating factors that challenge the mens rea the impose this. And all this is laid out in law before criminal prosecution is imposed. A judge simply does not have the option to say two of the three people charged with the same charge who committed the same acts will get a misdemeanor charge and the third will get a felony charge. Their individual actions involved in committing the crime will determine this.
There is an exception however. It's not important with this case since it wasn't even brought up. The government can ask for, and the judge would then be allowed to, reduce sentencing below the sentencing guidelines and/or reduce felonies to misdemeanors based around the convict's cooperation in the investigation or willingness to testify against another person or offer incriminating evidence that solves a larger problem. But these are the exceptions to the rule and always require special and specific circumstances.
An offense that is not specifically classified by a letter grade in the section defining it, is classified if the maximum term of imprisonment authorized is—
It goes by the maximum sentence available under the statute if it isn't specifically spelled out. So if the max sentence is 20 years, it would be a class C felony independent of an actual sentence of 12 weeks or whatever. The only time it would differ would be in one of the special exceptions. The exceptions are after the fact BTW.
Wow, do you just invent whatever you need to in order to support your mad Ideology? I mean seriously, this is not anything resembling the truth. Also, the Alaskan AG investigated it and said there was nothing outside an innocent mistake associated with trying to maintain two email accounts on the same devices. She didn't delete anything, and even if she did, it wouldn't matter because the Kernel dude downloaded/screenshot all her email and posted it on the internet. You can still find it with a simple google search.
You know, Yahoo doesn't need a web browser to compose and send emails. You can use things called Email client applications. There are lots of them available and some are called outlook, outlook express, thunderbird, and so on. I'm sure Palin logged into yahoo from a computer, but I'm more certain that she didn't always have to. And with the limited amount of cross over information, it doesn't mean she would automagically see the mistakes. When I log into Yahoo from remote computers, I only get about 15 or so messages displayed at a time.
Perhaps you should actually look into the situation and compare reality to whatever you have cooked up in your mind. There wasn't many cross over emails, and they all were emails to or from people she also had a personal relationship with outside of the governorship.
Well, it can be partisanship because of ideological reasoning. In other words, Obama set in the stimulus a tax rebate and automatically said that the republicans would support it. When they didn't, he blamed it on them being partisan. But the reality of it was that the rebate wasn't supported because it didn't do anything economical sound in the short term, and being a single rebate meant it wouldn't be around long enough to have an impact in the long term. We figured this out with Bush and his retroactive tax cuts that ended up in giving a rebate too.
Here is the thing. Don't be surprised if your kid thinks you are a dork who doesn't get it because he told you he wanted a vanilla ice cream cone with chocolate topping and you gave him a chocolate ice cream cone with vanilla marshmallow toppings. Granted, it's an ice cream cone, but it's nothing similar to what was wanted. Automatically saying it's what he wants is sort of like completely not getting it but then attempting to claim you do. In other words, Obama's approach of saying "Here, it's a tax cut, you should be happy" is not only partisan, but completely different from asking what they wanted and actually working with them on giving them something close.
I mean seriously think about this. Suppose you needed an AMD processor to fix the company server and the boss decided to grab an Intel processor because it fit his needs better? Would it be partisan of you to object to the Intel Processor when the boss completely ignored your needs and just imposed the idea that something else at his whim would be sufficient?
I guess the big distinction is that the federal government is supposed to only do it in relation to terrorist investigations and they are supposed to only release information pertinent to an arrest and conviction. This guy was different as it didn't limit the actions to a gross need to keep people safe and released everything possible outside of any need to prosecute or arrest anyone.
In other words, the two actions are not comparable because of artificial limitations put in place on one party in the actions. It's like saying your 5 year old brother is a world series baseball player because he's good a T-ball. granted, they are doing similar things, but they are more then technically different.
But that still doesn't change what he said, the doing illegal activities wasn't a defense. The judge still found it a violation of law which upheld the charges. The claim of exposing wrongdoings was just a defense.
As others responded, it's not the job of the court to uphold public opinion. What is their job is to regulate and solve disputes within their jurisdiction with public law or contractual agreements using existing law and precedents. Their decisions can only be viewed within the scope of which it was detailed with.
If public opinion thinks it's a bad situation, then the public has the ability to change the laws (or pressure lawmakers to change them) which would force future decisions to be in line with public opinion. But unless the ruling goes against existing law or precedent, it's just a ruling you don't agree with.
The crime is already a felony or not. The judge cannot simply make up sentencing terms at his whim. These all need to be laid out in law before you even violate the laws otherwise it violated the post facto, and fair and impartial, clauses of the constitution.
You simply cannot have a law that says If you do X, you can be charge with a crime that will be determined after your trial. What you have is laws saying if you do X, it's a misdemeanor or a felony and then what degree. The law can also say if Y or Z was a factor, it can be a misdemeanor or felony of some greater degree or even jump from a misdemeanor to a felony so that X+Y or X+Z could be a felony. If it's a class E felony, then the minimum sentencing is 1 year.
IF you only get the minimum, you are not eligible for accrued sentence reductions like time served for good behavior or whatever. This is why you see 1 year plus one day. It's not the minimum and allows good behavior, work system rehabilitation credits and so on. With those, it's possible that half to one third of his sentence could be negated completely as time served being counted in excess of the physical time due to participation in some rehab program or because of his conduct while incarcerated.
The sentencing doesn't determine if it's a felony or not, the sentence is determined because of it it's a felony or not. You have cause and effect backwards.
The length of sentence imposed does not determine if something is a felony or not. That's done by statute.
You could get into a fight with three people and get the maximum sentence for three first degree misdemeanor assaults (6 months *3) and serve an effective 18 month or a year and a half and not be charged with one felony. You can also be charge with and convicted of a felony and not be sentenced to a complete year for the single offense. The offense is generally listed as a felony or misdemeanor by it's sentencing guidelines in which the year long definitions are in play. But all this is determined well before you reach a trial and is not dependent on your sentence post conviction at all. You are either convicted of a felony offense or not. It's not up to the judge to decide at the last minute if it's going to be a felony or not. You have a constitutional right to know what you are being charged with before you are on trial. This is why some laws can be misdemeanor or felony offenses depending on the mens rea and you will be charged with both and the judge or jury can pick which one you are convicted of.
Well, using it to get around FOIA requests is a but misleading. It was never proven that was the reason. It could have been the result but the laws on it do not take the result as the reason automagically. It was argued by Palin and staff that it was a messup detailing that the blackberries used had both personal and government emails attached to them and by selecting a contact, it showed the name of the contact not the email address and it was simply a mistake that personal email addresses ended up being used. This was supported by numerous other politicians as well as businesses claiming they have realized the same problems in the past or present.
Stating the idea that the use was in order to to hide from FOIA requests and such accountability is nothing but speculation and inferred opinion. It could be but all official investigations into it determined that it was an accidental oversight caused by the complexity of having both accounts on the same phones. You may want to believe otherwise, but you shouldn't state your opinion as fact when it is little more then your opinion.
Flattened impingement.
There was an old lady that lived in a shoe,
she used open source software but got sued.
When she told the judge she couldn't afford the settlement for patent infringement,
He said you have a house, your defense has a flattened impingement.
She said take everything I own,
it won't be enough,
you can kiss my ass for the rest,
if you don't like it, that's just tough.
Don't forget, decisions you don't like does not automatically make them bad decisions. And decisions argued by incompetent defense or prosecutors don't necessarily make them bad decisions- just bad argument or defense of the case at hand.
The R&D hasn't stopped. In fact, it's pretty much just as flat as it always has been with a few minor exception. If the government stayed on the alternative kick from the 1970's, we wouldn't be much different then we are now.
The problem isn't really an R&D problem but a pure science problem as we are close to the limits of anything that is affordable with the existing fundamentals. Solar power has been around since the late 1800's, wind power since the early 1900's, and water power has been around in some form or another for several centuries. These aren't technologies that were introduced in the 60's, dropped out of existent in the 80's only to re-emerge in the 2000's.
You can't completely claim it was about trying to kill Bin Laden. The problem here is that Clinton- well people within his administration, let Bin Laden go on a previous encounter where his death would have been certain.
In fact, Clinton's method of operation of the time was to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue which is why it was so out of character that this act in the Sudan gets marked as a cover-up. If he had been actively attempting to kill Bin Laden, no one would have taking the timing and the events to mean anything other then what it was. But alas, that wasn't the case, the time suggested that the sudden temporary change in direction was actually motivated by other circumstance surrounding the president.
And your point is what? I mean it doesn't disprove or remove anything that I said. Maybe your statement may be in the lines more like, "the president can't put just any cuckoo into a position under him as he has to convince his own party to accept them". but if his party controls the senate, he has to do nothing to appease the other party.
I guess in your rush to pin everything on one side, you are missing the entire point. Halliburton did business with the government long before the republicans were in power and long after they were out. The only blame to assign here is what you have made up in your mind in order to fault the republicans. None of the democrats had attempted to stop Halliburton from doing business with the government outside of spewing crap to incite useful idiots like you. And yes, they have had more then enough opportunity to do something by now.
Wrong, there is nothing technically locking the military into using Halliburton outside of it's size and capabilities and Halliburton winning the bids on competitive advantage, not vendor lock ins. You are completely making this crap up as Halliburton never supplied the military with anything that dependent. Halliburton is a mobile services company specializing in oil field services- not a weapons system developer or munitions supplier or anything of the sorts.
And perhaps you don't grasp it yet. Hallitburton did nothing that required NATO standards and/or supply chains to be in place. Plus, even if they did, Halliburton would have already been NATO standards compliant seeing how they were a US company working for the US government. Worse yet, Standards are in place simply to avoid the shit you mentioned with Turkey and Russian parts. In other words, even if they were involved in something that caused Standards to kick in, the entire reason for standards in the first place is so the stuff can be changed out and inter-operate from a number of different countries or companies.
Lol... your making so much of this up it isn'