On the other hand, you have no expectation of privacy when you travel out in public. This is rather obvious because when you travel in public, everyone around you can see you and knows where you are. Thus, the Fourth Amendment does not apply, and it has been long established law that police can conduct surveillance on anyone in a public area without a warrant. (Note: This is the same basic rationale by which placing cameras on street corners does not violate the Fourth Amendment.)
What if the no expectation of privacy in public argument is wrong? Someone can eavesdrop on my conversation in a mall but what if I whisper in a friends ear? Just because I'm in public I loose my expectation of a private conversation? They can overhear my cell phone conversation while I'm in public but they can't tap my cell call. Why? What if I sneak out of the house dressed in a wig with a fake mustache to hide my identity? I don't have that right? I can't conceal my identity because I'm in public? We had that argument here in Georgia during the Anonymous protest against Scientology. It's illegal to conceal your identity in public in this state and everybody was up in arms over it. What if I'm reading a letter but have my back turned so others can't see? How about clothing? I'm in public so therefore I have no right to cover myself?
It's my opinion just being in public, that fact alone, is not enough to release me of any expectation of privacy. There are times I expect a whole lot of privacy while I'm in public. I believe the whole "while in public" argument is a fallacy. An argument of convenience. Maybe that long established law is wrong.
Here's the interesting thing: many Americans would shit themselves if someone were arrested for exercising their freedom of speech, regardless of what's been said, or at least, as I've been discovering, as long as it conforms to their worldview. On the other hand, Chinese think very differently.
Like that guy arrested in a mall for wearing an anti Bush / War T-Shirt....Oh wait.
I had the same thing happen from the other side after ordering a widget. I signed up for a newsletter when I didn't uncheck a box that was the same color as the background and three pages deeper than I actually went. I confirmed my choice a second time when I pressed the button that said "Estimate Shipping Rates".
Kidding aside something similar did happen. I contacted the vendor I ordered from and told him I reported his junk as SPAM. He was incredulous, the email I got back was full of justifications and rationalizations. After all I liked his product enough to order from him at least once. How could I not want to hear about specials. Besides, if I wanted to be removed all I had to do was go to his site, maneuver through several hard to find pages and fill out forms. In his mind I was the bad guy.
AMD/ATI's Linux driver has been open source, released at the same time as their windows driver for sometime now, compared to nVidia's linux drivers which are still closed source and is a pain to get installed. I think that misconception needs to die, and die yesterday.
If that's what I was referring too, I'd agree. I apologize for not being more clear. I have two machine literally side by side. One has an ATI card, the other nVidia. Running Ubuntu on both, out of the box the nVidia driver installed and runs perfectly giving me all those fancy graphics capabilities...
The ATI machine loaded its driver but none of the advanced graphics are available. I'm forced to run the desktop at the minimum bling. Every time I adjust even the resolution my sessions are broken for two to three reboots. I've given up trying to 'fix' whatever was wrong with the X config. Especially when I had a nVidia machine that purrs like a kitten and worked without any, and I mean any user intervention.
That's just been my experience with two machines side by side. YMMV. When I spoke of the driver difference I was not speaking about GPL.
It seems these days that all Charlie does is write long article bashing Nvidia. That is unless he's writing an article that's so over the top that his editor has to pull it (yes, believe it or not, there actually is an editor in charge of all those pieces).
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it." - George Bernard Shaw
The question you raise I'll restate as: Is what Charlie saying wrong? I prefer Nvidia to ATI because of their Linux drivers. But drivers alone a complete system does not make. Real is real and the truth is truth.
I understand what you're saying. I tend to agree. However, at the same time all you're pointing out is that when the punishment for crime 'X' is 'Y' blacks tend to serve 'Y' minus a little. Granted, blacks more often serve the listed punishment but they are serving the punishment for the crime. It's not as if the maximum punishment is 5 years and they're unfairly being sentenced to 10.
Invoking the personal responsibility rule if someone commits a crime with a maximum 5 year sentence how can they complain when they get 3 or less? Your post is kind of like complaining to the cop while you're getting a ticket that everybody else is also speeding why aren't they getting tickets too.
Maybe the solution isn't that blacks should get off they way you did. Maybe it's that you should have served your time. That, or we change these stupid laws and let people get on with their lives unmolested. Both white and black.
The other folks just picked up on the original publicized story and repeated it. Shouldn't she instead be suing the daughter for the alleged erroneous publication? Apparently they want to redefine what is considered publication for public consumption.
As in I place a stupid sign in my garden and sue because a helicopter snaps a picture of it and use the argument that I only intended it to be seen by my immediate neighbors. Sometimes I wonder if I'm just getting older and wiser or if instead the world really is going down the flusher.
Comcast has nothing to fear. They have more than enough friends in Congress that absolutely nothing will happen to them. If some token fine is levied it will be refunded with an apology.
After writing my state's (Georgia) Senators both their replies read like a Comcast PR marketing campaign. My local Representative website reads like a FOX News fear banner. He doesn't even bother replying to my letters any more. Comcast is safe.
In all honestly I'm a bit suspicious. At this point in my life I am not trusting anything connected to corporations or government. With this guy attacking it affords Comcast the opportunity to get laws passed specifically protecting them by allowing and sanctioning what they're doing. Whats to say this isn't some ploy by Comcast to drum up sympathy? Yes, I believe they are that calculating and evil.
However, the law is written such that if "investigation" were to take on the vernacular, then nearly all activities computer-related could be considered investigations. In fact, it could be taken to be as absurd as viewing the "private" page of someone on Myspace would be an investigation and thus a criminal offense.
Therein lies the rub. If it only takes the re-interpretation of a single word to turn this the law into a clusterfusk then it's a bad law IMHO. And, it will happen. Some high profile case involving protecting a child will re-interpret the original meaning of this law and the worst will happen.
Today the law is relatively harmless. How about 10 years from now? Was the DMCA ever meant to be used the way it is now? Who ever intended drug forfeiture laws to be used to confiscate a persons inheritance because they're traveling home from the funeral with it in cash?
Most laws are probably well intended. However, it only takes one zealous prosecutor to "interpret" the law to his advantage when he wants to make an example of someone. How about facing a felony computer trespassing / hacking charges because you broke the TOS of a website like MySpace by using a fake name as in the Meier's suicide case?
It's become that a person can't wake, go about their day and retire for the evening without comiting at least one felony throughout the day. And that's scares me.
Let's start with a far-out example, simply because I feel like it. If a website for sushi lovers demands that all its users enjoy sushi, and some troll joins up and says they hate sushi, that person under this reasoning would be a criminal who would potentially face 5 years in prison.
I'm scared because your example is not "far-out" at all. This is exactly what it's about. All websites disallow offensive content in their TOS. And, "they" don't potentially face 5 years in prison, you, me, everybody faces prison. It's just a matter of who they decide to go after. Once anyone, for what ever reason (read "protect the children"), looses their civil liberties we all do.
Terms of Service do NOT have the rule of law.
They do now. I suppose there's a mitigating factor that a judge might throw out the charges but that's doubtful. It could go as far as the Supreme Court but I doubt that too. The law is pretty clear.
It just happens this is the case of that 13 year olds suicide because someone said she was ugly. Personally I think the parents should be blaming Darwin. I dream of a world where the prosecutor would instead go after the parents for raising a child so susceptible to criticism as to kill herself. Failing to properly raise a child should be the crime IMHO. Although in her suicide she probably saved a future boss that decided not to hire her. It might be cold but I feel safer with her gone.
In the mean time I need to really protect myself. It's a dangerous world to breath or blink your eyes in. As this post is probably offensive to someone, I'm now a felon. Although I already was. Over the weekend I poured a little too much bleach in a load of laundry. It's a felony to use that product inconsistent with it's labeling.
I read through the primary source document listed and did not see "computer technician" specifically listed in the language.
I tend to agree but the rub must be in the interpretation. It could be:
(12) a person who on the person's own property or on property owned or managed by the person's employer:
(B) repairs an electronic security device; or...
Not "all" repairs, just some. Anything anything to do with "security" seems to be covered as are "investigations". That's the rub. Define security device or investigation. Is a password protected device a security related issue or an investigation if you help them recover the logon? Of after replacing the hard drive you setup a default password? You know how these laws go... Drug forfeiture laws I believe were never intended to take the home of a retired couple because they were playing penny-anti poker with friends at their back yard BBQ but laws that limit our freedoms with an initial good intent grow like cancers... It's better to deal with it now than later.
All that and the President isn't even interested in Bin Laden. There's a video of him in a news conference saying just that, a couple times in fact. It's good picture where Bush stands...
Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him...
It seems to me OnStar has been lucky so far. Most members of groups like Anonymous or even individual hacker types don't have a $50,000 truck/car sitting in the garage. At the point it becomes "fun" to play with OnStar I suspect General Motors is going to be in a lot of trouble. Unless, of course, General Motors has accomplished what no one in history has, they built a completely bullet proof device with no back doors that is 100% secure.
I wonder if this kill switch is the tipping point that gets hackers attention? Like the Cruise video was with Anonymous. I've seen some but not a lot of hacking OnStar on the INet. Could this kill switch be when hackers decide it's time to figure out how to get OnStar to answer it's phone? What is the signal protocol? Etc... This is the prerequisite to some 14 year shutting down Chicago. Maybe this will be it.
What is important, however, is that, despite all this, we can actually, with enough thought, make decisions based on logic, as opposed to "feelings" or "what we think is reasonable."
So, what you feel is better and more reasonable is to make decisions based upon logic? That's a great way to avoid making decisions based upon feelings and what one may think reasonable.
You are, by definition, an enigma. How you beat the Darwinian odds of survival is an exceptional accomplishment. Congratulations. If I'd care to count I think you've used every logical fallacy there is.
You change your focus, combine events and are unable to stay on topic. Using one argument as source to to prove another. Switching back an forth between traveling with medications to purchasing controlled substances in a foreign country and importing them. And the best argument of all: I find it too difficult to believe therefor you must be wrong. I love that one.
I am just not going to try and explain it to you any more. I've linked directly to several CBP sources and you'll quote one sentence out of 50 as your proof. Even though the other 49 are saying "moreover...", "additional restrictions"... You ignore those. When I linked to a dictionary definition of import to help you out you switch your argument to traveling with meds. I've run out of ways to get it across. Besides, you're just not interested in anything that opposes your beliefs. Facts be damned.
Anyway... Have a good life and I wish you and your aged parents well in your travels.
Depends: Where were the medication you're referring too purchased?
#1 Medications purchased in the USA under US law carried out of the country and brought back in upon return = Legal. (Personal property)
#2 Medications purchased in a foreign country brought into the US = Felony. (Importing)
-[d]-
How old are you anyway? What you're quoting as proof is a Red herring logical fallacy. It is completely unrelated to the topic. Read the entire paragraph.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Citibank is not necessarily the company to be blaming for the breach...
How about the account information originated from Citibank? Perhaps the blame is unfair if they have to provide account information to insecure entities to make the cards work. Nevertheless, if it's not breach direct from Citibank servers then Citibank released sensitive account information to insecure third parties. There's blame in that. Allowing Citibank or others to pass this off to third parties negates the source of the problem. As in blaming the runny nose instead of the cold.
Recently I received a marketing email for third party banking related services and sometimes snail mail offers too from third parties. I called my Credit Union and berated them for 10 minutes to never, never give out my account information again. They said, but we didn't give out 'xxx' or 'yyy'. I told them that the fact I even have an account with them is my personal information in a how dare they tone of voice. I'm trying to do my part to get it through to these people sharing my personal information is not okay.
The simple reason for the urban myth and slow learner comments:
Slow Learner comes from: After at least 5 references to and several direct links the subject is provided with the following information directly from Customs and Border Patrol:
Question:
Purchasing medications from a supplier outside the U.S.
Answer:
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibits persons from importing into the United States any prescription drug that has not been approved for sale by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or which is adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of the Act. Moreover, in those instances where a U.S. manufacturer makes an FDA-approved prescription drug and sends it abroad, the Act also prohibits any person other than the original manufacturer from importing the drug back into the U.S. Thus, in virtually all instances, individual citizens are prohibited from importing prescription drugs into the U.S.
Subject seems to have a problem with comprehension, or is so prejudiced in his own view as to completely overwhelm fact. Even still, after having been provided direct links and quotes from CBP subject continues to propagate statements such as:
Even if you travel accross the US border to Mexico (or canada) to get prescriptions, that is legal, assuming you have with you the prescription from the doctor.
Urban Myth comes from:
There is nothing illegal about... linking to pages which had nothing to do with... Imagine for a moment a world in which your position were a reality. Your position is just ludicrous.
Subject has a belief so strong it completely overwhelms multiple attempts at providing new information. (Note: Subject could possibly be Republican, see Current Administration - WMD). Subject references 'others' having similar experiences as proof. Frustrated the subject often resorts to ad hominin attacks using logical falsies as "proof". See:
Your position is just ludicrous.
Note: Although unknown, the propagation of myth and comprehension issues may be directly related to subjects age. See: Youthful Indestructibility. Or, one of denial, See: The Republican Effect. Other possibilities - See: Troll.
Bringing controlled substances into the USA without a license is a felony. There's a difference between US residents and nonresidents. You may want to have a look at what the CBP has to say about the subject.
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/vacation/kbyg/prohibited_restricted.xml
(scroll down to "medication") I read it long before I even started posting. What's your point?
U.S. residents entering the United States at international land borders... are subject to certain additional requirements... may be imported by that person, provided all other legal requirements are met. If you follow all the links, read all the restrictions and regulations, in the end you'll find the CBP finely concludes...
Thus, in virtually all instances, individual citizens are prohibited from importing prescription drugs into the United States. The bold emphases is theirs, I did not add it. It's a point CBP wanted to make very clear. This begs the question did you read it? If you did, what's the point you wanted to make? That it's okay?
Tell you waht (sic). There's a certain bliss to ignorance I have no right to take away from anyone. Please accept my apologies. Border patrol will wave you through I'm sure of that. Because they do, it must be legal. Everyone has always believed it's legal. And besides, there can't be a law so ridiculous making it illegal for someone to bring medications they need into the country. That would be stupid. Besides if it was against the law they'd be arresting 1000's of people every day and they're not doing that. And so, for all these arguments, I admit I'm wrong. You win.
All I have ever been talking about is bringing prescription medications "over on your person". That should have been clear since my original post. Sure, you misspelled "bringing", but I still understood you. That is why I specifically quoted "Try brining prescription medications over on yor person". I wanted to make it perfectly clear that I was only talking about bringing your prescription medications with you. You wanted to make it clear. You did. It's always been clear. Let me try again: It's a felony. Is that clear?
I know what you've been saying, that hasn't been the problem. You say it's fine, no problem to bring your prescription medication into the US. The US government says it's a felony they're sometimes willing to overlook. As I said, I've made better progress explaining quantum mechanics to a fifth grader.
By law you are not allowed to bring in (Import) controlled substances without a license except under very limited circumstances. None of your examples satisfy those conditions. Traveling with personal medications does not meet those conditions. I linked you to the site explaining what those conditions are and even cut/paste them into the post. (It didn't help).
Border officers, most of the time, look the other way when people travel with their medications. That doesn't make it legal. It's still a felony with what is called a low enforcement priority. If you need medications the law says you must procure them here, in the USA, under our laws. Bringing them with you (Importation) is a felony.
I'll say it again (repetition sometimes helps slow learners). Importation of controlled substances into the USA without a license is a felony. Import = bring in.
You take pleasure with your little insults. Yes, I mentioned mail order. That's one method of importing. It's not the only one. You can import "bring in" controlled substances via boat, backpack, airplane, walking carrying a package. Import (bring in) in a clandestine manner increases the crime to suggleing (so don't import controlled substances hiding them in your shoe).
If I leave the USA and travel to Spain, purchase OTC medications (which are controlled in the USA) and bring them back (Import) that's a felony. Even if it's for personal use.
If I originate my travels in Spain leave with substances controlled by the US (prescription medications) and bring them into the USA it's a felony.
Bringing controlled substances into the USA without a license is a felony. It doesn't matter how you bring them in. Because they sometimes look the other way doesn't mean it's legal.
(Is the repetition helping?)
Is english your second language? If it is, you're doing well, you just need to work on it a little. There's nothing left to say. I'm running out of ways to explain it to you. And your personal digs are irritating. To quote Mark Twain - It is better to remain quiet and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Or in this case, posting on Slashdot sticking on a point when you're wrong.
You have no idea what you are talking about.... Again, you link to a site that talks about purchasing via internet and receiving by mail... Okay, I give up. What fusking page(es) are you on? The ones I linked too? Because they say NOTHING about "via Internet". They say nothing about "receiving by mail". Nothing. If you're going to the pages I linked too and you're reading "via Internet", "receiving by mail" then I want some of these drugs you're apparently on:)) Go to Google and type "define:import".
And I'm not talking about taking your prescriptions along with you while you travel either. Where did you get that? The same place you reading "via Internet" and "receiving by mail"? Because I certainly didn't write it.
Jessssus, what fusking drugs are you on anyway because I want some! Anyway, I'm finished with this thread. I've made more progress explaining quantum mechanics to a fifth grader. Have a good time and don't forget to share:)
The TSA does not control our borders. Linking to them is irrelevant. How about The Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection? You know, the ones who will be inspecting your bags.
They will look the other way only if *all* the following conditions are met (maybe):
1. The intended use of the drug is for a serious condition for which effective treatment may not be available domestically;
2. The drug will not be distributed commercially by the importer;
3. The product is considered not to represent an unreasonable risk;
4. The individual seeking to import the product affirms in writing that the drug is for the patient's own use and provides the name and address of the doctor licensed in the United States responsible for his or her treatment with the product, or provides evidence that the product is for the continuation of a treatment begun in a foreign country.
Your scenario:
Although, I often wonder about things like my astma medicine, which does not require a prescription in Spain, but does in the US. I have never had a problem, but I have often wondered if they could accuse me of drug trafficking or something because of astma medicine. on assumption satisfies (Number 2). Certainly it does not meet all. Thus, a felony. So, I will not can my response.
Plunk. You're a Friend of a Friend so you can be all that bad. Don't take being wrong so hard.
Try brining prescription medications over on your person. Prescription medication is perfectly ok. No it's not. Passing urban myths as truth does not make it so. It does however fall under enforcement priorities. More often than not they look the other way for small quantities.
Although, I often wonder about things like my astma medicine, which does not require a prescription in Spain, but does in the US. I have never had a problem, but I have often wondered if they could accuse me of drug trafficking or something because of astma medicine. Yes they can. If you do not have a script and the drug requires a prescription in the US you're committing a felony bringing it in to the USA. Same goes for drugs not approved by the FDA. The same goes for drugs you do have a script for. The same goes for... {anything}.
Unlicensed (unapproved) importation of medications into the USA is a felony. But then again so is pouring bleach into your laundry without measuring it (It is a felony to use this product inconsistent with it's labeling). BTW: that includes using the product without reading it's label. I doubt it's even possible to wake, go about your day, and retire without committing multiple felonies. That's a problem.
All documents and property are subject to inspection and even seizure. As far as I know they always have been. When has there _ever_ been an exception?
Any border officer can leaf through day planners and address books. If I bring across unopened mail they can open and read it. They can and do. I've had sealed envelopes opened and inspected. Sometimes their contents seized under the presumption items were illegal. If you want to test it, try ordering prescription medications and have them mailed to you. Try brining prescription medications over on your person.
That's property you say and not "ideas"? During WWII they opened personal mail and any correspondence with the word "atom", "atomic" and a whole list of other words like troop movements were seized and earned you a visit from the FBI. They seized all photographs leaving the country. They even seized vacation photographs from people leaving the country as well.
Today the word is child porn. Tomorrow the word may be dissatisfaction. Who knows what they'll come up with next? The only difference today is the number of citizens affected and the number of citizens becoming aware. It's numbers, percentage of population affected that's changed.
It's not always a cliché or just because it is a cliché doesn't make it untrue. When others say wake up people they mean it. You do not live in the United States you learned about in school. What is taught to us about the USA is theory. It can take a lifetime to sort out the truth and some never do.
His chief competitor is valued at 15 Billion. He bought MySpace for 580 Million. They were neck to neck in April. Obviously I'm not a business man because it sounds to me like he got a deal.
Granted the numbers are flat at 5% growth compared to Facebook more than doubling. And, it's unlikely Murdoch would ever listen to customer complaints and do what he wants instead. Like shoveling adverts down their throats and charging for what was once free. So what if he bought into a business he knows nothing about that requires a lot of customer attention and satisfaction who aren't falling over themselves for the privilege of giving him money. A business paradigm where dictator types are mocked at rather than feared...
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, you have no expectation of privacy when you travel out in public. This is rather obvious because when you travel in public, everyone around you can see you and knows where you are. Thus, the Fourth Amendment does not apply, and it has been long established law that police can conduct surveillance on anyone in a public area without a warrant. (Note: This is the same basic rationale by which placing cameras on street corners does not violate the Fourth Amendment.)
What if the no expectation of privacy in public argument is wrong? Someone can eavesdrop on my conversation in a mall but what if I whisper in a friends ear? Just because I'm in public I loose my expectation of a private conversation? They can overhear my cell phone conversation while I'm in public but they can't tap my cell call. Why? What if I sneak out of the house dressed in a wig with a fake mustache to hide my identity? I don't have that right? I can't conceal my identity because I'm in public? We had that argument here in Georgia during the Anonymous protest against Scientology. It's illegal to conceal your identity in public in this state and everybody was up in arms over it. What if I'm reading a letter but have my back turned so others can't see? How about clothing? I'm in public so therefore I have no right to cover myself?
It's my opinion just being in public, that fact alone, is not enough to release me of any expectation of privacy. There are times I expect a whole lot of privacy while I'm in public. I believe the whole "while in public" argument is a fallacy. An argument of convenience. Maybe that long established law is wrong.
-[d]-
Here's the interesting thing: many Americans would shit themselves if someone were arrested for exercising their freedom of speech, regardless of what's been said, or at least, as I've been discovering, as long as it conforms to their worldview. On the other hand, Chinese think very differently.
Like that guy arrested in a mall for wearing an anti Bush / War T-Shirt. ...Oh wait.
I had the same thing happen from the other side after ordering a widget. I signed up for a newsletter when I didn't uncheck a box that was the same color as the background and three pages deeper than I actually went. I confirmed my choice a second time when I pressed the button that said "Estimate Shipping Rates".
Kidding aside something similar did happen. I contacted the vendor I ordered from and told him I reported his junk as SPAM. He was incredulous, the email I got back was full of justifications and rationalizations. After all I liked his product enough to order from him at least once. How could I not want to hear about specials. Besides, if I wanted to be removed all I had to do was go to his site, maneuver through several hard to find pages and fill out forms. In his mind I was the bad guy.
AMD/ATI's Linux driver has been open source, released at the same time as their windows driver for sometime now, compared to nVidia's linux drivers which are still closed source and is a pain to get installed. I think that misconception needs to die, and die yesterday.
If that's what I was referring too, I'd agree. I apologize for not being more clear. I have two machine literally side by side. One has an ATI card, the other nVidia. Running Ubuntu on both, out of the box the nVidia driver installed and runs perfectly giving me all those fancy graphics capabilities...
The ATI machine loaded its driver but none of the advanced graphics are available. I'm forced to run the desktop at the minimum bling. Every time I adjust even the resolution my sessions are broken for two to three reboots. I've given up trying to 'fix' whatever was wrong with the X config. Especially when I had a nVidia machine that purrs like a kitten and worked without any, and I mean any user intervention.
That's just been my experience with two machines side by side. YMMV. When I spoke of the driver difference I was not speaking about GPL.
-[d]-
It seems these days that all Charlie does is write long article bashing Nvidia. That is unless he's writing an article that's so over the top that his editor has to pull it (yes, believe it or not, there actually is an editor in charge of all those pieces).
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it." - George Bernard Shaw
The question you raise I'll restate as: Is what Charlie saying wrong? I prefer Nvidia to ATI because of their Linux drivers. But drivers alone a complete system does not make. Real is real and the truth is truth.
-[d]-
I understand what you're saying. I tend to agree. However, at the same time all you're pointing out is that when the punishment for crime 'X' is 'Y' blacks tend to serve 'Y' minus a little. Granted, blacks more often serve the listed punishment but they are serving the punishment for the crime. It's not as if the maximum punishment is 5 years and they're unfairly being sentenced to 10.
Invoking the personal responsibility rule if someone commits a crime with a maximum 5 year sentence how can they complain when they get 3 or less? Your post is kind of like complaining to the cop while you're getting a ticket that everybody else is also speeding why aren't they getting tickets too.
Maybe the solution isn't that blacks should get off they way you did. Maybe it's that you should have served your time. That, or we change these stupid laws and let people get on with their lives unmolested. Both white and black.
The other folks just picked up on the original publicized story and repeated it. Shouldn't she instead be suing the daughter for the alleged erroneous publication? Apparently they want to redefine what is considered publication for public consumption.
As in I place a stupid sign in my garden and sue because a helicopter snaps a picture of it and use the argument that I only intended it to be seen by my immediate neighbors. Sometimes I wonder if I'm just getting older and wiser or if instead the world really is going down the flusher.
-[d]-
Comcast has nothing to fear. They have more than enough friends in Congress that absolutely nothing will happen to them. If some token fine is levied it will be refunded with an apology.
After writing my state's (Georgia) Senators both their replies read like a Comcast PR marketing campaign. My local Representative website reads like a FOX News fear banner. He doesn't even bother replying to my letters any more. Comcast is safe.
In all honestly I'm a bit suspicious. At this point in my life I am not trusting anything connected to corporations or government. With this guy attacking it affords Comcast the opportunity to get laws passed specifically protecting them by allowing and sanctioning what they're doing. Whats to say this isn't some ploy by Comcast to drum up sympathy? Yes, I believe they are that calculating and evil.
-[d]-
However, the law is written such that if "investigation" were to take on the vernacular, then nearly all activities computer-related could be considered investigations. In fact, it could be taken to be as absurd as viewing the "private" page of someone on Myspace would be an investigation and thus a criminal offense.
Therein lies the rub. If it only takes the re-interpretation of a single word to turn this the law into a clusterfusk then it's a bad law IMHO. And, it will happen. Some high profile case involving protecting a child will re-interpret the original meaning of this law and the worst will happen.
Today the law is relatively harmless. How about 10 years from now? Was the DMCA ever meant to be used the way it is now? Who ever intended drug forfeiture laws to be used to confiscate a persons inheritance because they're traveling home from the funeral with it in cash?
Most laws are probably well intended. However, it only takes one zealous prosecutor to "interpret" the law to his advantage when he wants to make an example of someone. How about facing a felony computer trespassing / hacking charges because you broke the TOS of a website like MySpace by using a fake name as in the Meier's suicide case?
It's become that a person can't wake, go about their day and retire for the evening without comiting at least one felony throughout the day. And that's scares me.
-[d]-
Let's start with a far-out example, simply because I feel like it. If a website for sushi lovers demands that all its users enjoy sushi, and some troll joins up and says they hate sushi, that person under this reasoning would be a criminal who would potentially face 5 years in prison.
I'm scared because your example is not "far-out" at all. This is exactly what it's about. All websites disallow offensive content in their TOS. And, "they" don't potentially face 5 years in prison, you, me, everybody faces prison. It's just a matter of who they decide to go after. Once anyone, for what ever reason (read "protect the children"), looses their civil liberties we all do.
Terms of Service do NOT have the rule of law.
They do now. I suppose there's a mitigating factor that a judge might throw out the charges but that's doubtful. It could go as far as the Supreme Court but I doubt that too. The law is pretty clear.
It just happens this is the case of that 13 year olds suicide because someone said she was ugly. Personally I think the parents should be blaming Darwin. I dream of a world where the prosecutor would instead go after the parents for raising a child so susceptible to criticism as to kill herself. Failing to properly raise a child should be the crime IMHO. Although in her suicide she probably saved a future boss that decided not to hire her. It might be cold but I feel safer with her gone.
In the mean time I need to really protect myself. It's a dangerous world to breath or blink your eyes in. As this post is probably offensive to someone, I'm now a felon. Although I already was. Over the weekend I poured a little too much bleach in a load of laundry. It's a felony to use that product inconsistent with it's labeling.
YMMV
-[d]-
I read through the primary source document listed and did not see "computer technician" specifically listed in the language.
I tend to agree but the rub must be in the interpretation. It could be:
(12) a person who on the person's own property or on property owned or managed by the person's employer:
(B) repairs an electronic security device; or...
Not "all" repairs, just some. Anything anything to do with "security" seems to be covered as are "investigations". That's the rub. Define security device or investigation. Is a password protected device a security related issue or an investigation if you help them recover the logon? Of after replacing the hard drive you setup a default password? You know how these laws go... Drug forfeiture laws I believe were never intended to take the home of a retired couple because they were playing penny-anti poker with friends at their back yard BBQ but laws that limit our freedoms with an initial good intent grow like cancers... It's better to deal with it now than later.
-[d]-
All that and the President isn't even interested in Bin Laden. There's a video of him in a news conference saying just that, a couple times in fact. It's good picture where Bush stands...
Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him...
It seems to me OnStar has been lucky so far. Most members of groups like Anonymous or even individual hacker types don't have a $50,000 truck/car sitting in the garage. At the point it becomes "fun" to play with OnStar I suspect General Motors is going to be in a lot of trouble. Unless, of course, General Motors has accomplished what no one in history has, they built a completely bullet proof device with no back doors that is 100% secure.
I wonder if this kill switch is the tipping point that gets hackers attention? Like the Cruise video was with Anonymous. I've seen some but not a lot of hacking OnStar on the INet. Could this kill switch be when hackers decide it's time to figure out how to get OnStar to answer it's phone? What is the signal protocol? Etc... This is the prerequisite to some 14 year shutting down Chicago. Maybe this will be it.
-[d]-
What is important, however, is that, despite all this, we can actually, with enough thought, make decisions based on logic, as opposed to "feelings" or "what we think is reasonable."
So, what you feel is better and more reasonable is to make decisions based upon logic? That's a great way to avoid making decisions based upon feelings and what one may think reasonable.
-[d]-
...but I'm 40
Quoting Freud, Spooky.
You are, by definition, an enigma. How you beat the Darwinian odds of survival is an exceptional accomplishment. Congratulations. If I'd care to count I think you've used every logical fallacy there is.
You change your focus, combine events and are unable to stay on topic. Using one argument as source to to prove another. Switching back an forth between traveling with medications to purchasing controlled substances in a foreign country and importing them. And the best argument of all: I find it too difficult to believe therefor you must be wrong. I love that one.
I am just not going to try and explain it to you any more. I've linked directly to several CBP sources and you'll quote one sentence out of 50 as your proof. Even though the other 49 are saying "moreover...", "additional restrictions"... You ignore those. When I linked to a dictionary definition of import to help you out you switch your argument to traveling with meds. I've run out of ways to get it across. Besides, you're just not interested in anything that opposes your beliefs. Facts be damned.
Anyway... Have a good life and I wish you and your aged parents well in your travels.
-[d]-
Depends: Where were the medication you're referring too purchased?
#1 Medications purchased in the USA under US law carried out of the country and brought back in upon return = Legal. (Personal property) #2 Medications purchased in a foreign country brought into the US = Felony. (Importing)
-[d]-
How old are you anyway? What you're quoting as proof is a Red herring logical fallacy. It is completely unrelated to the topic. Read the entire paragraph.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Citibank is not necessarily the company to be blaming for the breach...
How about the account information originated from Citibank? Perhaps the blame is unfair if they have to provide account information to insecure entities to make the cards work. Nevertheless, if it's not breach direct from Citibank servers then Citibank released sensitive account information to insecure third parties. There's blame in that. Allowing Citibank or others to pass this off to third parties negates the source of the problem. As in blaming the runny nose instead of the cold.
Recently I received a marketing email for third party banking related services and sometimes snail mail offers too from third parties. I called my Credit Union and berated them for 10 minutes to never, never give out my account information again. They said, but we didn't give out 'xxx' or 'yyy'. I told them that the fact I even have an account with them is my personal information in a how dare they tone of voice. I'm trying to do my part to get it through to these people sharing my personal information is not okay.
YMMV
-[d]-
The simple reason for the urban myth and slow learner comments:
Slow Learner comes from: After at least 5 references to and several direct links the subject is provided with the following information directly from Customs and Border Patrol:
Question:
Purchasing medications from a supplier outside the U.S.
Answer:
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibits persons from importing into the United States any prescription drug that has not been approved for sale by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or which is adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of the Act. Moreover, in those instances where a U.S. manufacturer makes an FDA-approved prescription drug and sends it abroad, the Act also prohibits any person other than the original manufacturer from importing the drug back into the U.S. Thus, in virtually all instances, individual citizens are prohibited from importing prescription drugs into the U.S.
Subject seems to have a problem with comprehension, or is so prejudiced in his own view as to completely overwhelm fact. Even still, after having been provided direct links and quotes from CBP subject continues to propagate statements such as:
Even if you travel accross the US border to Mexico (or canada) to get prescriptions, that is legal, assuming you have with you the prescription from the doctor.
Urban Myth comes from:
There is nothing illegal about... linking to pages which had nothing to do with... Imagine for a moment a world in which your position were a reality. Your position is just ludicrous.
Subject has a belief so strong it completely overwhelms multiple attempts at providing new information. (Note: Subject could possibly be Republican, see Current Administration - WMD). Subject references 'others' having similar experiences as proof. Frustrated the subject often resorts to ad hominin attacks using logical falsies as "proof". See:
Your position is just ludicrous.
Note: Although unknown, the propagation of myth and comprehension issues may be directly related to subjects age. See: Youthful Indestructibility. Or, one of denial, See: The Republican Effect. Other possibilities - See: Troll.
-[d]-
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/vacation/kbyg/prohibited_restricted.xml
(scroll down to "medication") I read it long before I even started posting. What's your point? U.S. residents entering the United States at international land borders... are subject to certain additional requirements... may be imported by that person, provided all other legal requirements are met. If you follow all the links, read all the restrictions and regulations, in the end you'll find the CBP finely concludes... Thus, in virtually all instances, individual citizens are prohibited from importing prescription drugs into the United States. The bold emphases is theirs, I did not add it. It's a point CBP wanted to make very clear. This begs the question did you read it? If you did, what's the point you wanted to make? That it's okay?
Tell you waht (sic). There's a certain bliss to ignorance I have no right to take away from anyone. Please accept my apologies. Border patrol will wave you through I'm sure of that. Because they do, it must be legal. Everyone has always believed it's legal. And besides, there can't be a law so ridiculous making it illegal for someone to bring medications they need into the country. That would be stupid. Besides if it was against the law they'd be arresting 1000's of people every day and they're not doing that. And so, for all these arguments, I admit I'm wrong. You win.
-[d]-
I know what you've been saying, that hasn't been the problem. You say it's fine, no problem to bring your prescription medication into the US. The US government says it's a felony they're sometimes willing to overlook. As I said, I've made better progress explaining quantum mechanics to a fifth grader.
By law you are not allowed to bring in (Import) controlled substances without a license except under very limited circumstances. None of your examples satisfy those conditions. Traveling with personal medications does not meet those conditions. I linked you to the site explaining what those conditions are and even cut/paste them into the post. (It didn't help).
Border officers, most of the time, look the other way when people travel with their medications. That doesn't make it legal. It's still a felony with what is called a low enforcement priority. If you need medications the law says you must procure them here, in the USA, under our laws. Bringing them with you (Importation) is a felony.
I'll say it again (repetition sometimes helps slow learners). Importation of controlled substances into the USA without a license is a felony. Import = bring in.
You take pleasure with your little insults. Yes, I mentioned mail order. That's one method of importing. It's not the only one. You can import "bring in" controlled substances via boat, backpack, airplane, walking carrying a package. Import (bring in) in a clandestine manner increases the crime to suggleing (so don't import controlled substances hiding them in your shoe).
If I leave the USA and travel to Spain, purchase OTC medications (which are controlled in the USA) and bring them back (Import) that's a felony. Even if it's for personal use.
If I originate my travels in Spain leave with substances controlled by the US (prescription medications) and bring them into the USA it's a felony.
Bringing controlled substances into the USA without a license is a felony. It doesn't matter how you bring them in. Because they sometimes look the other way doesn't mean it's legal.
(Is the repetition helping?)
Is english your second language? If it is, you're doing well, you just need to work on it a little. There's nothing left to say. I'm running out of ways to explain it to you. And your personal digs are irritating. To quote Mark Twain - It is better to remain quiet and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Or in this case, posting on Slashdot sticking on a point when you're wrong.
-[d]-
And I'm not talking about taking your prescriptions along with you while you travel either. Where did you get that? The same place you reading "via Internet" and "receiving by mail"? Because I certainly didn't write it.
Jessssus, what fusking drugs are you on anyway because I want some! Anyway, I'm finished with this thread. I've made more progress explaining quantum mechanics to a fifth grader. Have a good time and don't forget to share
-[d]-
The TSA does not control our borders. Linking to them is irrelevant. How about The Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection? You know, the ones who will be inspecting your bags.
Buying Prescription Medicine From Internet Foreign Pharmacies
Medication/Drugs
They will look the other way only if *all* the following conditions are met (maybe):
1. The intended use of the drug is for a serious condition for which effective treatment may not be available domestically;
2. The drug will not be distributed commercially by the importer;
3. The product is considered not to represent an unreasonable risk;
4. The individual seeking to import the product affirms in writing that the drug is for the patient's own use and provides the name and address of the doctor licensed in the United States responsible for his or her treatment with the product, or provides evidence that the product is for the continuation of a treatment begun in a foreign country.
Your scenario: Although, I often wonder about things like my astma medicine, which does not require a prescription in Spain, but does in the US. I have never had a problem, but I have often wondered if they could accuse me of drug trafficking or something because of astma medicine. on assumption satisfies (Number 2). Certainly it does not meet all. Thus, a felony. So, I will not can my response.
Plunk. You're a Friend of a Friend so you can be all that bad. Don't take being wrong so hard.
-[d]-
Unlicensed (unapproved) importation of medications into the USA is a felony. But then again so is pouring bleach into your laundry without measuring it (It is a felony to use this product inconsistent with it's labeling). BTW: that includes using the product without reading it's label. I doubt it's even possible to wake, go about your day, and retire without committing multiple felonies. That's a problem.
-[d]-
All documents and property are subject to inspection and even seizure. As far as I know they always have been. When has there _ever_ been an exception?
Any border officer can leaf through day planners and address books. If I bring across unopened mail they can open and read it. They can and do. I've had sealed envelopes opened and inspected. Sometimes their contents seized under the presumption items were illegal. If you want to test it, try ordering prescription medications and have them mailed to you. Try brining prescription medications over on your person.
That's property you say and not "ideas"? During WWII they opened personal mail and any correspondence with the word "atom", "atomic" and a whole list of other words like troop movements were seized and earned you a visit from the FBI. They seized all photographs leaving the country. They even seized vacation photographs from people leaving the country as well.
Today the word is child porn. Tomorrow the word may be dissatisfaction. Who knows what they'll come up with next? The only difference today is the number of citizens affected and the number of citizens becoming aware. It's numbers, percentage of population affected that's changed.
It's not always a cliché or just because it is a cliché doesn't make it untrue. When others say wake up people they mean it. You do not live in the United States you learned about in school. What is taught to us about the USA is theory. It can take a lifetime to sort out the truth and some never do.
YMMV
-[d]-
His chief competitor is valued at 15 Billion. He bought MySpace for 580 Million. They were neck to neck in April. Obviously I'm not a business man because it sounds to me like he got a deal.
Granted the numbers are flat at 5% growth compared to Facebook more than doubling. And, it's unlikely Murdoch would ever listen to customer complaints and do what he wants instead. Like shoveling adverts down their throats and charging for what was once free. So what if he bought into a business he knows nothing about that requires a lot of customer attention and satisfaction who aren't falling over themselves for the privilege of giving him money. A business paradigm where dictator types are mocked at rather than feared...
I take that back, he got screwed.
-[d]-