Remember how excited everyone got when Ashcroft was fired^W^Wresigned?
Actually, Ashcroft was a right-wing asshole, with nothing better to do then go after sick people smoking weed (*gasp*, the horror!) but even he had misgivings about the direction this administration is taking civil rights and law enforcement.
I'd take Ashcroft back over Gonzales in a heartbeat.
He is just a puppet. The puppet master is still pretty much in power. I doubt his replacement will be different. The democrats pretty much gave Bush a blank check to do whatever he wants.
Got a better idea? What should they do? Impeach him? What kind of Congress would waste months of time and disillusion millions of Americans by impeaching a President when they know they will never be able to get a conviction in the Senate..... oh wait, n/m....
What's the best answer to the question, "do you know how fast you were going?"
I always answer it with "Yes, I do" and leave it at that. If they are being real pricks (the state cops around here are complete assholes.... admit to anything and it goes on the ticket and will be used against you) I might say "As policy I don't talk to law enforcement officers without my attorney present. Here's my license". Of course, that all but ensures the ticket, but at least I'm not giving them ammo to use against me.
It's pointless (in my state) to try and talk to the cops anyway. The DA is the one that has the power to reduce/drop the ticket.
I'd be one to support the "competitor" argument. My alcohol consumption dropped dramatically when I smoked and then went right back up when I quit (job started random tests). Before I started and after I quit, it's not unusual to see me drinking 2-5 drinks (be it beer/malt beverages or shots) 3-5 nights a week. When I was smoking, I might have a beer or two if a sporting event I cared to watch was on, maybe a few shots of the good stuff once a week when hanging out with friends. I got the "looseness" I desired without the negative effects of alcohol, so I had no reason to bother.
I guess it depends on the person. My alcohol consumption didn't drop one iota. Drinking for me is a social activity. If I'm hanging out with friends there's a decent chance that beer is being passed around. I suppose weed might have taken the place of that single beer that I'd have after a hard day at the office -- but it didn't replace it in the social context. And oftentimes weed and booze went hand-in-hand.
And I hear ya on the negative effects of alcohol. Headache, cotton mouth, upset stomach, etc, etc, etc. The only negative effect I've ever gotten off pot was weight gain and a lighter wallet. It's way too easy to get delivery when you have the munchies.....
I know what you mean by the DIY nature of the more natural drugs but I think that the state and potential corporate growers would make money at it. Just because you can grow it doesn't mean people will grow it. For the same reason most people don't brew their own beer or distill their own booze. I'd rather buy a ready to use product ( pack of malboro joints please ) as opposed to growing my own because I don't have the time or money required ( high power growing lights etc. room for plants) to do it myself.
Well, if it was legal, you wouldn't need grow lights, because you could grow the stuff in your garden outdoors without fear of being arrested. But yeah, I still think there would be a market for it, because as you pointed out, how many people brew their own beer or make their own wine? I've tried both, and had success with the wine (beer didn't work out so well...;), but yet I still buy both.
It's easier to grow weed then it is to brew beer, but it's still not a light undertaking. There'd be a market for it I'd suspect.
I think besides other reasons, you'll never see pot or the like legalized because of the money situation. The alcohol industry surely doesn't want a 'competitor' on the market. And the govt. really can't make money off it since people can grow it themselves. I'm willing to bet that the cotton industry would have a fit if it were legalized, since it would also allow for hemp to be cultivated again for fabric usage.
I don't know if pot would be a "competitor" to alcohol. Most of the potheads that I know still drink. Hell, when I was smoking I didn't give up or even reduce my alcohol consumption. That's probably not a very scientific study but take it for what it's worth.
Personally, I'd never touch the stuff....but, I'm for letting people have their choice in it, and taking the money out of it for the criminals, and reducing govt. spending on the 'war' on them.
Having done both, I'd rather have my kids start smoking weed then drinking alcohol. Have any friends in law enforcement? Ask them who they'd rather deal with -- the stoned guy or the drunk. People don't tend to get violent and beat the shit out of the old lady when smoking weed.
People have been forced to buy and use crack at gunpoint, including myself.
I find that hard to swallow. Got any links to local news stories? What the hell would be the advantage of forcing somebody to BUY your crack and USE it at gunpoint? If I had a gun and needed some cash I'd just TAKE YOUR MONEY. Why the hell would you involve drugs?
Gagarin is known way beyond the borders of the former USSR. It's part of common knowledge who was the first man in space. Unfortunately it's not to know who got him there.
I'd say that Wernher von Braun is fairly well known in the US, if not the rest of the World. The engineers do get their fair share of the credit it would seem...
The 'digital packages' (of course the only 'digital' channels are the ones that I never watch, plus PPV/MOD stuff) all cost more then that and require a set-top box that makes my old TiVo a PITA to use.
$53.90/mo for the privilege of watching The Daily Show/Colbert Report, Mythbusters, plus a few History Channel shows. Nothing else on any of the cable-only channels (can have the local network channels for a lousy $5/mo, or free with an antenna) is worth watching to me. And they wonder why I've dropped my cable and switched to watching stuff on the internet (Daily Show has virtually the whole show on their webpage in clips) and using bittorrent.
Unless, of course, the state makes it a crime to refuse the test after giving the "implied consent."
Show me an actual state where that's a crime because I don't buy that it would be constitutional. You can't punish somebody for refusing to give evidence against themselves.
You can be punished via civil sanctions (loss of driving license and/or fees assessed by DMV) but this is quite different from a criminal conviction. If I refuse a breath test I'll be a marked man at DMV, lose my license for awhile and maybe even pay more for insurance. But I won't have a criminal record just because I refused the test.
Here in Kentucky, refusing tests is an aggravating circumstance that results in doubling of minimum sentence
That assumes that they can convict you of DWI, something made much harder by denying them the evidence that you were intoxicated at the time. Reasonable doubt and all that.
It also results in suspension of your driver's license for the same amount of time as a for a conviction
Your losing your license regardless. Would you rather lose it and be convicted of DWI or lose it and have a better chance at beating the charges/pleading to a lesser offense?
The refusal can be used as evidence of DUI
What's next? Asking for a lawyer and refusing to answer questions can be used against you as well?
Did I suggest otherwise? I only suggested that anybody trusting a closed-source client published by a company that has a business relationship with members of the MPAA may wish to consider finding an open-source client if they use bittorrent for activities that may violate local copyright laws.
Otoh, some builds of azareus DID phone home
Yes, but I can remove that "feature" from the source code if I so choose. And AFAIK Azareus doesn't have a business relationship with any members of MPAA.
In the case of drunk driving, most states have adopted the law that if you are driving a vehicle, you have then given consent to submit to the approved test to find out if you're driving under the influence of alcohol. When you are stopped and you're not sure of what your alcohol level is, you cannot refuse to take a breathalyzer test. As soon as you got your drivers license, you gave consent in advance to do this. If you refuse, you will find yourself in bigger trouble than you would have by submitting to the test. This implied consent is automatic in the case of anyone who drives a vehicle. From: http://www.lawcore.com/dui-dwi/what-is-implied-con sent.html.
You will find yourself in bigger trouble if you refuse then if you just take it? I'm sorry, but did you find that on a prosecutor's website or MADD?
If you refuse the test you are denying them evidence to use against you in a criminal proceeding. You will have to deal with the civil punishment from DMV (typically a suspended license for a period of time and some civil $$$ penalties) but you are denying the state evidence to use against you at a criminal proceeding.
In most states they can't force you to submit to a chemical test of any kind (breath, urine, blood) except for a few limited sets of circumstances (accident involving injury or death, you previously agreed to the breath test and now they want blood, etc, etc). Yes, you will lose your license for awhile, but they probably won't have enough evidence to convict you of drunk driving. Whereas if you had submitted to the test you will probably be convicted (criminal record) and lose your license anyway.
Refuse the test unless you are 100% proof-positive that you aren't intoxicated. This doesn't even mean 0.08. In many states they can hit you with lesser charges at 0.05.
they told us that they could get a subpoena for your blood.
In New York they can only get a subpoena for your blood under two very limited conditions:
You take the breath test and it comes back that you've been drinking. They can now subpoena your blood and/or urine with a court order if you refuse further tests and they deem they want more evidence.
You are involved in an accident that causes serious injury or death to someone besides yourself.
If you know you are going to fail the breath test (which you will if you've had three or four drinks in an hour without any time to sober up) then don't take it. Yeah, you'll lose your license under the implied consent laws, but you won't be giving them any evidence to use against you either. I'd rather deal with the fallout from a civil license suspension then a criminal conviction.
Hey, you wanna take a stroll with me on the lawn of the White House? It's really pretty this time of year. It's public property, ya know.
You were trying to be funny, but there actually was a time when the White House was more or less open to the public. In the 1800s Presidents would even entertain the public at the White House after they were inaugurated.
Granted, I'm not sure how feasible that would be in this day and age, but the whole imperial presidency, (large staffs that border on the royal courts of old, the praetorian guard^W^W^Wsecret service, people more loyal to the man then the law, etc, etc) seems to run counter to the ideals of our Republic doesn't it?
I go as far as to run it in WINE and it's still slicker than Azureus
Yes, but at least I know that Azureus isn't reporting what I'm downloading back to the mothership. You know, the same mothership that has signed deals with members of the MPAA.
Anybody using a closed source bittorrent client to do anything more aggressive then download a Linux distribution is insane, IMHO.
That's a stupid example. Come back to me when Apple tries to use the weight of iTunes to keep your favorite band from being released on CD or doing live shows because they signed a deal with them.
Its called competition. DirecTV has every right to try to lockup programming if they are willing to pay the price. That is the future. Look at DirecTV's football package; most subscribers would still pay for it if the price was double, its that good. I have no problem with providers buying up product.
Bullshit. If I want to watch MLB, Law & Order, or the NFL I shouldn't have to subscribe to DirecTV. The owner of the pipe shouldn't get to dictate what the other pipes can carry. That's called a monopoly, not competition.
You aren't seriously putting remote controls up as an example of why buttons are good are you?
Why not? The TiVo remote comes to mind as one of my favorites. It's instantly intuitive. I wouldn't see it working nearly as well as a touchscreen without tactile feedback....
Codename "Summer Solstice" - no, not a porn film, but the name of the FBI operation encompassing multiple copyright investigations - including the one in question.
I'm so glad that the FBI has taken time off from ignoring warnings about terrorists training to fly jumbo jets to go after the real threat to the American way of life: Chinese software pirates......
But on Linux, I simply don't run any anti-spyware (because spyware has not been a problem). But if Big Brother manages to hack my ~/.xsession or firefox-bin (for example), it may be a very long time (if ever) before I notice.
But with Linux the kernel is presumably trustworthy and you can firewall off any means of access for remote exploits. Can you say the same with Windows?
Course if big brother really wants you all they have to do is a sneak and peek and rootkit your PC. Really doesn't matter what OS you are using.....
Slashdot Mirror
There's one big reason why I won't advocate impeaching Bush: President Dick Cheney
Actually, Ashcroft was a right-wing asshole, with nothing better to do then go after sick people smoking weed (*gasp*, the horror!) but even he had misgivings about the direction this administration is taking civil rights and law enforcement.
I'd take Ashcroft back over Gonzales in a heartbeat.
Got a better idea? What should they do? Impeach him? What kind of Congress would waste months of time and disillusion millions of Americans by impeaching a President when they know they will never be able to get a conviction in the Senate..... oh wait, n/m....
I always answer it with "Yes, I do" and leave it at that. If they are being real pricks (the state cops around here are complete assholes.... admit to anything and it goes on the ticket and will be used against you) I might say "As policy I don't talk to law enforcement officers without my attorney present. Here's my license". Of course, that all but ensures the ticket, but at least I'm not giving them ammo to use against me.
It's pointless (in my state) to try and talk to the cops anyway. The DA is the one that has the power to reduce/drop the ticket.
I guess it depends on the person. My alcohol consumption didn't drop one iota. Drinking for me is a social activity. If I'm hanging out with friends there's a decent chance that beer is being passed around. I suppose weed might have taken the place of that single beer that I'd have after a hard day at the office -- but it didn't replace it in the social context. And oftentimes weed and booze went hand-in-hand.
And I hear ya on the negative effects of alcohol. Headache, cotton mouth, upset stomach, etc, etc, etc. The only negative effect I've ever gotten off pot was weight gain and a lighter wallet. It's way too easy to get delivery when you have the munchies.....
Well, if it was legal, you wouldn't need grow lights, because you could grow the stuff in your garden outdoors without fear of being arrested. But yeah, I still think there would be a market for it, because as you pointed out, how many people brew their own beer or make their own wine? I've tried both, and had success with the wine (beer didn't work out so well... ;), but yet I still buy both.
It's easier to grow weed then it is to brew beer, but it's still not a light undertaking. There'd be a market for it I'd suspect.
That'll come in handy, since the Internet is a series of tubes... some of which are bound to be connected to a urinal ;)
Bit of a difference between acid and other drugs. I know quite a few potheads and none of them have ever kidnapped a ten year old....
I think besides other reasons, you'll never see pot or the like legalized because of the money situation. The alcohol industry surely doesn't want a 'competitor' on the market. And the govt. really can't make money off it since people can grow it themselves. I'm willing to bet that the cotton industry would have a fit if it were legalized, since it would also allow for hemp to be cultivated again for fabric usage.
I don't know if pot would be a "competitor" to alcohol. Most of the potheads that I know still drink. Hell, when I was smoking I didn't give up or even reduce my alcohol consumption. That's probably not a very scientific study but take it for what it's worth.
Plus, think of the market for this ;)
Personally, I'd never touch the stuff....but, I'm for letting people have their choice in it, and taking the money out of it for the criminals, and reducing govt. spending on the 'war' on them.Having done both, I'd rather have my kids start smoking weed then drinking alcohol. Have any friends in law enforcement? Ask them who they'd rather deal with -- the stoned guy or the drunk. People don't tend to get violent and beat the shit out of the old lady when smoking weed.
I find that hard to swallow. Got any links to local news stories? What the hell would be the advantage of forcing somebody to BUY your crack and USE it at gunpoint? If I had a gun and needed some cash I'd just TAKE YOUR MONEY. Why the hell would you involve drugs?
I'd say that Wernher von Braun is fairly well known in the US, if not the rest of the World. The engineers do get their fair share of the credit it would seem...
Really? In my area there's a grand total of two analog packages:
The 'digital packages' (of course the only 'digital' channels are the ones that I never watch, plus PPV/MOD stuff) all cost more then that and require a set-top box that makes my old TiVo a PITA to use.
$53.90/mo for the privilege of watching The Daily Show/Colbert Report, Mythbusters, plus a few History Channel shows. Nothing else on any of the cable-only channels (can have the local network channels for a lousy $5/mo, or free with an antenna) is worth watching to me. And they wonder why I've dropped my cable and switched to watching stuff on the internet (Daily Show has virtually the whole show on their webpage in clips) and using bittorrent.
Show me an actual state where that's a crime because I don't buy that it would be constitutional. You can't punish somebody for refusing to give evidence against themselves.
You can be punished via civil sanctions (loss of driving license and/or fees assessed by DMV) but this is quite different from a criminal conviction. If I refuse a breath test I'll be a marked man at DMV, lose my license for awhile and maybe even pay more for insurance. But I won't have a criminal record just because I refused the test.
That assumes that they can convict you of DWI, something made much harder by denying them the evidence that you were intoxicated at the time. Reasonable doubt and all that.
It also results in suspension of your driver's license for the same amount of time as a for a convictionYour losing your license regardless. Would you rather lose it and be convicted of DWI or lose it and have a better chance at beating the charges/pleading to a lesser offense?
The refusal can be used as evidence of DUIWhat's next? Asking for a lawyer and refusing to answer questions can be used against you as well?
Did I suggest otherwise? I only suggested that anybody trusting a closed-source client published by a company that has a business relationship with members of the MPAA may wish to consider finding an open-source client if they use bittorrent for activities that may violate local copyright laws.
Otoh, some builds of azareus DID phone homeYes, but I can remove that "feature" from the source code if I so choose. And AFAIK Azareus doesn't have a business relationship with any members of MPAA.
No, but they are much less likely to obtain said conviction without the breath test results that showed you at 0.08.
You will find yourself in bigger trouble if you refuse then if you just take it? I'm sorry, but did you find that on a prosecutor's website or MADD?
If you refuse the test you are denying them evidence to use against you in a criminal proceeding. You will have to deal with the civil punishment from DMV (typically a suspended license for a period of time and some civil $$$ penalties) but you are denying the state evidence to use against you at a criminal proceeding.
In most states they can't force you to submit to a chemical test of any kind (breath, urine, blood) except for a few limited sets of circumstances (accident involving injury or death, you previously agreed to the breath test and now they want blood, etc, etc). Yes, you will lose your license for awhile, but they probably won't have enough evidence to convict you of drunk driving. Whereas if you had submitted to the test you will probably be convicted (criminal record) and lose your license anyway.
Refuse the test unless you are 100% proof-positive that you aren't intoxicated. This doesn't even mean 0.08. In many states they can hit you with lesser charges at 0.05.
In New York they can only get a subpoena for your blood under two very limited conditions:
If you know you are going to fail the breath test (which you will if you've had three or four drinks in an hour without any time to sober up) then don't take it. Yeah, you'll lose your license under the implied consent laws, but you won't be giving them any evidence to use against you either. I'd rather deal with the fallout from a civil license suspension then a criminal conviction.
You were trying to be funny, but there actually was a time when the White House was more or less open to the public. In the 1800s Presidents would even entertain the public at the White House after they were inaugurated.
Granted, I'm not sure how feasible that would be in this day and age, but the whole imperial presidency, (large staffs that border on the royal courts of old, the praetorian guard^W^W^Wsecret service, people more loyal to the man then the law, etc, etc) seems to run counter to the ideals of our Republic doesn't it?
Yes, but at least I know that Azureus isn't reporting what I'm downloading back to the mothership. You know, the same mothership that has signed deals with members of the MPAA.
Anybody using a closed source bittorrent client to do anything more aggressive then download a Linux distribution is insane, IMHO.
Do you wanna see overweight people getting into a bath?
That's a stupid example. Come back to me when Apple tries to use the weight of iTunes to keep your favorite band from being released on CD or doing live shows because they signed a deal with them.
Its called competition. DirecTV has every right to try to lockup programming if they are willing to pay the price. That is the future. Look at DirecTV's football package; most subscribers would still pay for it if the price was double, its that good. I have no problem with providers buying up product.Bullshit. If I want to watch MLB, Law & Order, or the NFL I shouldn't have to subscribe to DirecTV. The owner of the pipe shouldn't get to dictate what the other pipes can carry. That's called a monopoly, not competition.
Why not? The TiVo remote comes to mind as one of my favorites. It's instantly intuitive. I wouldn't see it working nearly as well as a touchscreen without tactile feedback....
I'm so glad that the FBI has taken time off from ignoring warnings about terrorists training to fly jumbo jets to go after the real threat to the American way of life: Chinese software pirates......
But with Linux the kernel is presumably trustworthy and you can firewall off any means of access for remote exploits. Can you say the same with Windows?
Course if big brother really wants you all they have to do is a sneak and peek and rootkit your PC. Really doesn't matter what OS you are using.....