Maybe they are trying the child as an adult because the crime comitted is serious enough that it is along the level of an adult... So, for example, if they find the child not guilty - but they catch someone else - they would instantly try him as an adult because the crime was already deemed as such? Just my rationale.
Minors, typically, do have a diminished capacity for certain things (compared to adults).... but knowing the difference of life and death does not require someone to be 18, 21, or any age above 6-8. I knew, from a young age (around 6-8) what life and death was about. I knew that I was scared when my dad drove a motorcycle because I was scared he would die. I knew that killed people was wrong, and that hurting people was wrong. If I, and many others know that at the ripe young age of 6-8...then a 14 year old should easily be held accountable.
I will go with some minor things, if a 8 year old says "I didn't think pushing him off the slide was going to hurt him." but the kids we are referencing planned, murdered, and LAUGHED about it - no remorse or stating that "we didn't know what would happen"...
Fry em - even better yet, give the grieving family the option to fry em.
A 16 year old may not understand a contract very well - but a 16 year old does know what death is about...so does a 14 year old and a 10 year old, and even an 8 year old. And yes, anyone who goes around killing people (like the DC area snipers) deserves to fry in a painful way - I could care less what the age.
17 year old kid with a 20 year sentence comes out of jail at the age of 37 --- may still be a sociopath, has been hardened by jail...his life is pretty much ruined (between the record, and spending the last 20 years in jail without any kind of job experience/training)....yea the kid we want in society.
If this was a crime of passion (i.e. the person they killed had actually killed there brother, or something else that might spark a crime of passion) then I could understand...but these kids planned this. They lured the dead kid out, beat him to death - took his money - and then LAUGHED about it. They deserve, all of them, the death penalty.
Again, why should I have to foot the bill for the next 20+ years...and 20 years is NOTHING for what they did.
Great so the tax payers have to foot the bill for the next 60 years or so. No thanks...kill em - fry em, hang em, shoot em...hell let the family beat them in the head with a bad for a few hours. I don't feel like I should have to pay for them to sit in jail, especially when one of them has "fond" memories of his actions.
I believe the girl who testified is getting murder 3, so she will probably get off in 20 years or less (probably around 5). So we will have a hardened criminal, who comes out of jail at the ripe age of 21...great she can get drunk AND go help someone else to get killed.
It's store policy that they will prosecute you to the full extent of the law if you shop lift. Since you do not work there are you going to tell them and the store policy to fuck-off and thereby shop lift?
You could attempt to sue the "individual" but wouldn't get very far as he would be represented by the store as he is representing the store. And the proof is your suspicious behavior which, by law, is enough to be detained.
Your statement shows that you are nothing but a anarchist wannabe troll.
I totally agree with you. As I have said in the past (so this post should be a insightful, redudant, troll), I surf at Karma Excellente - they can mod me down all day and I will still be fine:D
You obviously do not realize how some moderators believe the mod system to work
The moderators logic is - "If I read it somewhere, in some other thread - hell in a different life span- or if it can be conceived that someone else might have thought or said what you just said - then it needs to be redundant."
Personally I hate redundant mod - I do not read every single post in a thread - (there can be hundreds) and so it is not unlikely that my post will say something similar to someone elses.
Thats why I always metamod redudant as unfair. And I get to metamod one or two times a day (it seems like more...can i have mod points sometime?)
You know there is some SCO techie who is just doing his job because he needs a paycheck (he probably feels unpure about working for sco, but when you gotta feed a family, you gotta do it)... and he is dying to post here but is scared for being rated karma -50 (the mods will make an exception);)
1) It is their store policy, if you do not like it - don't shop there.
2) I could understand if they just selected a specific group of people (i.e. targeting only black people) then it would be a problem - they target everyone
3) People do shoplift - on their own and with assistance from store clerks.
4) Criminals can easily appear to be non-criminals (it's not that hard really). So those 20 store clerks you just hired - they seem reasonable - doesn't mean one of them won't steal
It is a naive, and actually from people on this board (which i expect more from) just plain being dickish to give these people a hard time.
They are not being assholes to you by asking for your receipt - they are trying to protect themselves from being robbed.
One of your arguments is that if they didn't catch a person shoplifting at the register then their only means of preventing or catching a criminal is a camera? Like camera's do much.
You are being ridiculous. This conversation is a matter of opinion so it will go nowhere. Again, if you do not like a particular stores policy - don't shop there - I am sure you can buy the same or similar products in another store. But being a dick to someone who is doing their job makes you the bad guy - not the rent-a-cop.
I ask you to prove yourself and you tell me that I have no clue as to what I am talking. The logic of this goes how?
1) The law asks for reasonable, and lends reasonable to a broad aspect. Sort of like when a police officer stops someone under the "I had reason to believe...."
2)Well duh. Though you have yet to show me the law written anywhere to prove your statement
3)There are many many law books - and while I may know of a few instances with regards to this law (i do), there might be something superseding it - hence I want proof from you. You claim my words were "dribble" so now I wnat you to prove it.
So far you have offered as much proof as I have, so shouldn't you ask yourself these questions.
If you do not like the store policies why do you bother shopping there? And yes a store can refuse to sell you an item for any reason (except the "wrong" reasons) they choose.
He needs to suspect you stole something. As I gave in another post
You walk out of store with bag
"Can I see your receipt sir...no?" thinking to himself (that is kind of weird, and suspicious)
There ya go. It is very reasonable and any reasonable cop would tell you to start acting like a grownup.
If you do not like those store policies, do not go inside. You see, the problem happens because criminals generally do not advertise they are comitting a crime - so when you act suspicious you are giving them reason to suspect you as a criminal.
But in all honesty, people just need to grow up - is that that inconvenient to show him the receipt so he can put a little check on it?
You walk out the store with a bag of stuff
The store gaurd asks you to show the receipt
You refuse
The store gaurd thinks "that is weird, why would a person who just bought something refuse to show me their receipt...unless they are shop lifting."
That is reasonable enough - ask a lawyer or a cop. The person is being suspicious by not showing their receipt. In addition the cop/lawyer/judge will tell you to just grow the fuck up.
Jesus, do people just do asshole things to be complete dicks for no other reason? No wonder our world is screwed up - it's not MS that screwed up the world - it's the SOB's who do it.
He can detain you until his manager arrives, and the manager (if he wants to) can detain you until the police arrive. Now if you decide to just ignore them and run, don't be surprised when a police officer tackles you down and slaps hand cuffs on you or when they circulate your pictures (from the cameras) to the police station. Once they find out you did nothing wrong except act like a moron - they will tell you to behave. You are in a place of business, the guard was doing his job - because you know there are criminals out there - and they don't wear signs on their heads saying "I'm the bad guy." So next time you feel like being a prick to some poor schlep trying to earn a buck, think on how you would feel and just let the guy do his job - it is not that much of an inconvenience.
I have had to do this twice. The first time was when Win XP first came out (i could not get it to work with my computer). I transferred the license to my friend (we called their support line). It took all of 10 minutes from the point of dialing...in fact I didn't have any phone menu's to navigate. The lady was friendly and (shock) American.
The other time was about a month ago. I had updated the motherboard/cpu on my desktop and used my Dell Laptop Win XP cd for the original installation. Obviously Win XP asked me to re-activate. I called, and spent about 15 minutes on the phone. I can't recall if the person was Indian, but I did understand them. The only annoying part was the automated system which reads your serial key. It took me about ten minutes to get through that (it didn't work twice). The person was much more helpful.
Overall, this portion of dealing with MS was kinda painless.
If I visit someone's site, and that is how they decide to generate revenue then it is their choice (their site). The only time this is a problem is if: 1) the pop-up opens up 30 other pop-ups, 2) the pop-up is annoyingly persistant, 3) everytime you go to another part of that website it brings another pop-up (even though you already have one opened, 4) if it installs malware.
Otherwise, in reality, an organization needs to do what they can do to stay up and running - if you do not like it---don't go to their site (again, assuming you were not dragged there.)
This is a vocational school (Business, mechanics, computers, and a couple other areas) where kids from other HS' spend half their day there. The computer teacher instructs them on how to program (C++, web) then going to network infrastructures, computer maintenance. He also has them setup different OS' in an "enterprise" fashion (including Linux, Windows, Unix). He then gives them a chance to do their own project. Teachers have a lot of latitude at times and can come up with some pretty cool things - even if the hardware (big cost) is not there.
They did make an arcade (they even fabricated the arcade box):)
One double edged sword for special interest groups is that because congress is so power hungry to get more power and to retain their power they are reluctant to give it to other groups. So if Congress finds that the FCC cannot do this and the FCC petitions for the power - well it will be an uphill battle to say the least. Congressman like their power.
Another thing to note - although the appelate courts slammed the FCC, that does not mean congress cannot bring this law into effect - and if they do, the courts might very well agree with them (hopefully they will go back to the beta-max law and disagree, but you know how judges can be)
Just like previous laws, that affect retail products, companies will be allowed to sell their current stock; new stock has to be produced with the new technology.
I know you were being funny (i thought you were going another route with the joke though), but just in case some people actually thought on it for a moment and wondered "what does happen to all of the tv's without this technology?"
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they are trying the child as an adult because the crime comitted is serious enough that it is along the level of an adult... So, for example, if they find the child not guilty - but they catch someone else - they would instantly try him as an adult because the crime was already deemed as such? Just my rationale.
Minors, typically, do have a diminished capacity for certain things (compared to adults).... but knowing the difference of life and death does not require someone to be 18, 21, or any age above 6-8. I knew, from a young age (around 6-8) what life and death was about. I knew that I was scared when my dad drove a motorcycle because I was scared he would die. I knew that killed people was wrong, and that hurting people was wrong. If I, and many others know that at the ripe young age of 6-8...then a 14 year old should easily be held accountable.
I will go with some minor things, if a 8 year old says "I didn't think pushing him off the slide was going to hurt him." but the kids we are referencing planned, murdered, and LAUGHED about it - no remorse or stating that "we didn't know what would happen"...
Fry em - even better yet, give the grieving family the option to fry em.
A 16 year old may not understand a contract very well - but a 16 year old does know what death is about...so does a 14 year old and a 10 year old, and even an 8 year old. And yes, anyone who goes around killing people (like the DC area snipers) deserves to fry in a painful way - I could care less what the age.
17 year old kid with a 20 year sentence comes out of jail at the age of 37 --- may still be a sociopath, has been hardened by jail...his life is pretty much ruined (between the record, and spending the last 20 years in jail without any kind of job experience/training)....yea the kid we want in society.
If this was a crime of passion (i.e. the person they killed had actually killed there brother, or something else that might spark a crime of passion) then I could understand...but these kids planned this. They lured the dead kid out, beat him to death - took his money - and then LAUGHED about it. They deserve, all of them, the death penalty.
Again, why should I have to foot the bill for the next 20+ years...and 20 years is NOTHING for what they did.
Great so the tax payers have to foot the bill for the next 60 years or so. No thanks...kill em - fry em, hang em, shoot em...hell let the family beat them in the head with a bad for a few hours. I don't feel like I should have to pay for them to sit in jail, especially when one of them has "fond" memories of his actions.
I believe the girl who testified is getting murder 3, so she will probably get off in 20 years or less (probably around 5). So we will have a hardened criminal, who comes out of jail at the ripe age of 21...great she can get drunk AND go help someone else to get killed.
do you mean similar to the murder case: Here
Because you know, we should allow these kids to get off with a slap on their wrist.
maybe I can sell my comic book collection!
It's store policy that they will prosecute you to the full extent of the law if you shop lift. Since you do not work there are you going to tell them and the store policy to fuck-off and thereby shop lift?
You could attempt to sue the "individual" but wouldn't get very far as he would be represented by the store as he is representing the store. And the proof is your suspicious behavior which, by law, is enough to be detained. Your statement shows that you are nothing but a anarchist wannabe troll.
I totally agree with you. As I have said in the past (so this post should be a insightful, redudant, troll), I surf at Karma Excellente - they can mod me down all day and I will still be fine :D
You obviously do not realize how some moderators believe the mod system to work
The moderators logic is - "If I read it somewhere, in some other thread - hell in a different life span- or if it can be conceived that someone else might have thought or said what you just said - then it needs to be redundant."
Personally I hate redundant mod - I do not read every single post in a thread - (there can be hundreds) and so it is not unlikely that my post will say something similar to someone elses.
Thats why I always metamod redudant as unfair. And I get to metamod one or two times a day (it seems like more...can i have mod points sometime?)
You know there is some SCO techie who is just doing his job because he needs a paycheck (he probably feels unpure about working for sco, but when you gotta feed a family, you gotta do it)... and he is dying to post here but is scared for being rated karma -50 (the mods will make an exception) ;)
1) It is their store policy, if you do not like it - don't shop there.
2) I could understand if they just selected a specific group of people (i.e. targeting only black people) then it would be a problem - they target everyone
3) People do shoplift - on their own and with assistance from store clerks.
4) Criminals can easily appear to be non-criminals (it's not that hard really). So those 20 store clerks you just hired - they seem reasonable - doesn't mean one of them won't steal
It is a naive, and actually from people on this board (which i expect more from) just plain being dickish to give these people a hard time.
They are not being assholes to you by asking for your receipt - they are trying to protect themselves from being robbed.
One of your arguments is that if they didn't catch a person shoplifting at the register then their only means of preventing or catching a criminal is a camera? Like camera's do much.
You are being ridiculous. This conversation is a matter of opinion so it will go nowhere. Again, if you do not like a particular stores policy - don't shop there - I am sure you can buy the same or similar products in another store. But being a dick to someone who is doing their job makes you the bad guy - not the rent-a-cop.
Lets see how flawed your argument is:
I ask you to prove yourself and you tell me that I have no clue as to what I am talking. The logic of this goes how?
1) The law asks for reasonable, and lends reasonable to a broad aspect. Sort of like when a police officer stops someone under the "I had reason to believe...."
2)Well duh. Though you have yet to show me the law written anywhere to prove your statement
3)There are many many law books - and while I may know of a few instances with regards to this law (i do), there might be something superseding it - hence I want proof from you. You claim my words were "dribble" so now I wnat you to prove it.
So far you have offered as much proof as I have, so shouldn't you ask yourself these questions.
If you do not like the store policies why do you bother shopping there? And yes a store can refuse to sell you an item for any reason (except the "wrong" reasons) they choose.
So cite your source - what is reasonable.
He needs to suspect you stole something. As I gave in another post
You walk out of store with bag
"Can I see your receipt sir...no?" thinking to himself (that is kind of weird, and suspicious)
There ya go. It is very reasonable and any reasonable cop would tell you to start acting like a grownup.
If you do not like those store policies, do not go inside. You see, the problem happens because criminals generally do not advertise they are comitting a crime - so when you act suspicious you are giving them reason to suspect you as a criminal.
But in all honesty, people just need to grow up - is that that inconvenient to show him the receipt so he can put a little check on it?
Imagine this scenario:
You walk out the store with a bag of stuff
The store gaurd asks you to show the receipt
You refuse
The store gaurd thinks "that is weird, why would a person who just bought something refuse to show me their receipt...unless they are shop lifting."
That is reasonable enough - ask a lawyer or a cop. The person is being suspicious by not showing their receipt. In addition the cop/lawyer/judge will tell you to just grow the fuck up.
Jesus, do people just do asshole things to be complete dicks for no other reason? No wonder our world is screwed up - it's not MS that screwed up the world - it's the SOB's who do it.
He can detain you until his manager arrives, and the manager (if he wants to) can detain you until the police arrive. Now if you decide to just ignore them and run, don't be surprised when a police officer tackles you down and slaps hand cuffs on you or when they circulate your pictures (from the cameras) to the police station. Once they find out you did nothing wrong except act like a moron - they will tell you to behave. You are in a place of business, the guard was doing his job - because you know there are criminals out there - and they don't wear signs on their heads saying "I'm the bad guy." So next time you feel like being a prick to some poor schlep trying to earn a buck, think on how you would feel and just let the guy do his job - it is not that much of an inconvenience.
I have had to do this twice. The first time was when Win XP first came out (i could not get it to work with my computer). I transferred the license to my friend (we called their support line). It took all of 10 minutes from the point of dialing...in fact I didn't have any phone menu's to navigate. The lady was friendly and (shock) American.
The other time was about a month ago. I had updated the motherboard/cpu on my desktop and used my Dell Laptop Win XP cd for the original installation. Obviously Win XP asked me to re-activate. I called, and spent about 15 minutes on the phone. I can't recall if the person was Indian, but I did understand them. The only annoying part was the automated system which reads your serial key. It took me about ten minutes to get through that (it didn't work twice). The person was much more helpful.
Overall, this portion of dealing with MS was kinda painless.
If I visit someone's site, and that is how they decide to generate revenue then it is their choice (their site). The only time this is a problem is if: 1) the pop-up opens up 30 other pop-ups, 2) the pop-up is annoyingly persistant, 3) everytime you go to another part of that website it brings another pop-up (even though you already have one opened, 4) if it installs malware.
Otherwise, in reality, an organization needs to do what they can do to stay up and running - if you do not like it---don't go to their site (again, assuming you were not dragged there.)
This is a vocational school (Business, mechanics, computers, and a couple other areas) where kids from other HS' spend half their day there. The computer teacher instructs them on how to program (C++, web) then going to network infrastructures, computer maintenance. He also has them setup different OS' in an "enterprise" fashion (including Linux, Windows, Unix). He then gives them a chance to do their own project. Teachers have a lot of latitude at times and can come up with some pretty cool things - even if the hardware (big cost) is not there.
:)
They did make an arcade (they even fabricated the arcade box)
If the rule/law dies, then any technology with these chips installed will sell - they will just sell to the average consumer who has no clue.
If the law is passed well the companies who produced them will be one step ahead of the game.
"So young, so angry....damn that rap music."
One double edged sword for special interest groups is that because congress is so power hungry to get more power and to retain their power they are reluctant to give it to other groups. So if Congress finds that the FCC cannot do this and the FCC petitions for the power - well it will be an uphill battle to say the least. Congressman like their power.
Another thing to note - although the appelate courts slammed the FCC, that does not mean congress cannot bring this law into effect - and if they do, the courts might very well agree with them (hopefully they will go back to the beta-max law and disagree, but you know how judges can be)
"It's new to you."
You apparantly are not running a WB "Fresh Episode"
Just like previous laws, that affect retail products, companies will be allowed to sell their current stock; new stock has to be produced with the new technology.
I know you were being funny (i thought you were going another route with the joke though), but just in case some people actually thought on it for a moment and wondered "what does happen to all of the tv's without this technology?"
No plan B, it distracts from plan A.