When it comes to schools, and particularly the "How dare you accuse my little angel" parents, you need to do a hell of a lot more than "determine" which student sent it.
Maybe in some cases of litigiously prone parents that would be the response. But most school administrations in America persecute individual students at whim, without much to justify their actions. Moreover, in this case we're dealing with young (at most high school age) kids who would quickly crumble upon confrontation.
This clearly demonstrates that "you" are the product!
...if you are a 13 year old girl.
Actually, in contrast to the government snooping and perhaps eventually throwing me in jail for views differing from the current gang in power, this is not a big concern.
(Sorry for the move off-subject.)
...
Seriously, I was born in 1959, in my lifetime... teenage mothers are no longer forced to give up their children at birth, men and women can cohabitate without the approval of the local preacher.
Those are just a few of the ways individual freedom has increased... We may have taken a small step backward with overzealous mass surveillance but it has done little to reverse the great strides forward that occurred in the 60's and 70's.
You paint a mistakenly rosy picture of American, I assume, society. The incarceration rate in America is beyond the dreams of, say, WWII era dictators. And state governments routinely snatch babies from their families - often without cause. (I won't even deal with you call a "small" step backwards.) Sure, if you selectively list positive developments, freedom looks as though it has marched forward, but if you remove your filter, you'll realize freedom in America is more crippled than ever.
Ross Ulbricht is arrogant, inexperienced and dumb, and he doesn't have a sufficiently strong moral foundation to operate a large anti-establishment enterprise. When arrested, he was using the Glen Park public library (in his home city of San Francisco, CA USA) WiFi viewing a Silk Road admin page he had titled "mastermind". This event shows his attitude toward himself and his level of caution.
He was caught because he slipped-up on identity security, realized it, yet took no precautions, like leaving the country.
I'll provide personal story that gives some insight into my own attitude toward being cautious while at the screen: Of the last three times I was busted, once (for traffic warrant) occurred as I was biking away from the courthouse, but the other two times prior (one traffic and the other, I kid you not, for littering) I was sitting in front of the computer at home.
The rule of law is applied in the US every day. Laws are being reviewed and modified as situations change in modern day society. The recent changes to the legality of marijuana is a good example of a flexible system of law....
You example is so adrift from your point, at first I thought you were being facetious. The US pot laws and their enforcement is one of the *best* examples of the "rule of law" being applied haphazardly and in a manner contrary to the public interest. Even today, many hundred of thousands (millions is probably closer) suffer from those laws.
(For example, dirty pot urine is today in the US a very common cause of revoking bond, violating probation, violating parole, seizing children or invoking numerous other government injurious acts. These are not minor events to the people who suffer.)
Moreover, there still is a serious discrepancy between the public will to legalize pot and the federal laws. And the current administration definitely opposes reform of the federal anti-pot laws.)
The fact that some states are beginning reform after decades of repression illustrates legal sluggishness, if anything.
I looked at a few of your other posts, cavreader. You are very pro-establishment. What kind of government employee or contractor are you?
You were sarcastic, but that is the whole freaking point of the rule of law: a list of rules such that, if you follow those rules, you won't be arrested. It makes for a far better society than one where you can be arrested whenever you annoy someone important, regardless of the rules.
That's an idealistic interpretation of the term, "rule of law", but it is not the one law enforcement, which includes the courts, in America subscribes to. For example, every day, kids (usually white kids preferably with blue eyes) are "removed" from their families by state child protective services departments. No law need to have been broken, and there is no written list of behaviors that will incur this government response. The concept is not hidden from the public. The kids are often taken simply because some state actor has determined the kids are "at risk".
How many times do sharks cruise beaches uneventfully? If this is meant to calm the public mind, well, lets just say this has potential to be counterproductive.
Really. Actually, sharks swim near humans all the time.
I don't suppose Snowden will ever be stupid enough to turn himself in, but what if he were standing trial here in the USA? The public, particularly the tech public, would come to his defense, maybe even with civil disobedience. I would, if I could.
Maybe the government *can't* try Snowden because of the public respect he's garnered.
...He's not a hero. He's a traitor....There was a right way to do this, he didn't even try a little bit to go that route.
He took on a huge personal risk for the good of America the world, and he did so knowingly and thoughtfully. I'm not sure how you define "hero", but for me, this guy fits the bill.
I would have done it too, and I would have been proud of myself if I had.
And what is this "right way" you mention? What are you suggesting he should have done? He did expose the activity in the right way. He saw something harmful for America, and then he went directly to his authority and reveled it. His authority is the American people.
The problems and inadequacies with the system described are stated in many other posts, so I won't repeat. But I've been working on a bike theft deterrent system myself. Unfortunately, I don't feel comfortable describing my work in a public forum because my words may be used against me in court when my device executes properly.
I've noticed, however, that if the case goes to a jury trial, the jury always acquits the property owner who made the booby trap.
If you leave a bike poorly locked publicly in my city, someone inevitably will try to steal it. If you setup the situation, you will catch a thief in the act. If you are concerned about getting the wrong target, you can watch from a distance with a control.
"Arrest-Proof Yourself"? Note my question mark. Ha Ha.That's closing the barn door belatedly for some of us. Hummmmm......Actually, I began reading. I must say I was skeptical when I clicked the link, but the authors, Dale C. Carson & Wes Denham, laid out a colorful table of contents that drew me in. It's a common sense (2007) book with lots of practical advice. I'm afraid we in the US need such a book. I'm downloading it.
Carson's 3 golden rules: "If cops can't see you, they can't arrest you," "Keep your dope at home," and "Give cops your name and basic info, then shut the f*@# up!"
I don't understand why people still buy books when you can just get (most of) them for nothing.
Sure, English speaking/. readers, who understand small quadcopters are unlikely to have a real vid card, can deduce what the writer (Nerval's Lobster) meant, but that doesn't excuse the writer for his imprecision. Besides, your 2 example terms have reasonable legacy etymologies. The writer's term use was just a sloppy mistake.
The summary says "the Russian government is warning its citizens to not travel to countries that have an extradition treaty with the United States", but the article says:
"The Russian Foreign Ministry posted advice of a somewhat different nature on Monday, cautioning people wanted by the United States not to visit nations that have an extradition treaty with it."
Unfortunately, that small omission significantly changes the meaning of the line.
The summary says "the Russian government is warning its citizens to not travel to countries that have an extradition treaty with the United States", but the article says:
"The Russian Foreign Ministry posted advice of a somewhat different nature on Monday, cautioning people wanted by the United States not to visit nations that have an extradition treaty with it."
Unfortunately, that small omission significantly changes the meaning of the line.
I'm glad you read the article for me. I assumed the summary was accurate, but I now see it's seriously misleading. Unknown Lamer, the submitter, should be ashamed.
The summary-version implies Russia is suggesting the US, at whim, may have you arrested in one of its allied countries. In the article-version, Russia is giving straight legal advice: if there is a US warrant for you, don't travel where a US warrant can be enforced.
Actually, the burden is on the promoter to prove that it DOES work. Until then, I have the position it doesn't, and I don't need to provide a thought experiment or anything else.
My mother was a little more capable with computers than you describe yours, but didn't like them or use them all that much. Yet, the story is just like yours. Once she got a Samsung Galaxy tablet, she uses it so much it is almost constantly with her. And she doesn't need my assistance other than what I showed her the first couple days she owned it. Two of her friends have also gotten them having seen hers. They too went from minimal computer use to being regular enthusiastic users of the tablets they own.
Other than trying them out at a store, I haven't used a tablet. I use a laptop constantly. However, your endorsement plus the others in this thread have convinced me a tablet is the path to getting a non-computer female to use a computer. If it does that, there's something to them.
Actually, many advertisers simply lie. For examples, just look at the pictures on American fast-food ads. They don't show the real product at all. So, you really don't need to analyze every modifier in an ad; simply, view anything promotional written by the anybody with a steak as unreliable.
It's unnecessary to spend hours studying the sexual allegations. Their timing makes then obviously false or trumped up.
Accepting them means we're expected to believe that coincidentally Assange engaged in questionable sex while he published secret and embarrassing government messages.
Reminds me of that little Cuban boy who was "NOT" seized from his family at gun point by SWAT police...until the photo was released that showed just that.
His family? You mean the deceased mother's 2nd and 3rd relatives and a bunch of right-wing Cuban-American celebrities and politicians? His family was his father (his living and breathing father) to whom the swat team delivered the boy.
His family was his father, who was asking Elian Gonzales (the boy) to be returned to his care. His mother and husband at the time took him out of Cuba in a raft in complete violation of the father's shared custody rights. His family was not the people who held Elian Gonzales (the boy in question) refusing to deliver him to his father just because he didn't want to leave Cuba. It was all political, a disgraceful spectacle that we in Miami had to endure at the hand of those nutjobs.
The swat team had to intervene because the people holding Elian were treating to retaliate with violence. Get your facts straight buddy.
Exactly. Actually, this is one time the US government did the right thing (by re-uniting Elián González with his father). My objection was that it delayed doing it.
The Cubans in Florida who are opposed to Castro have been a perpetual problem pushing their selfish cause. Granting them (and pretty much them only) automatic political asylum is the root of the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
When it comes to schools, and particularly the "How dare you accuse my little angel" parents, you need to do a hell of a lot more than "determine" which student sent it.
Maybe in some cases of litigiously prone parents that would be the response. But most school administrations in America persecute individual students at whim, without much to justify their actions. Moreover, in this case we're dealing with young (at most high school age) kids who would quickly crumble upon confrontation.
But the problem with Chicago is the causes of violent crime are fairly obvious and relatively easily remedied, ....
What are these obvious causes and how can they be easily remedied?
Sorry, I don't click on Anonymous Coward links.
You have the option to leave if you want to.
Resistance is futile.
This clearly demonstrates that "you" are the product!
...if you are a 13 year old girl. Actually, in contrast to the government snooping and perhaps eventually throwing me in jail for views differing from the current gang in power, this is not a big concern. (Sorry for the move off-subject.)
... Seriously, I was born in 1959, in my lifetime... teenage mothers are no longer forced to give up their children at birth, men and women can cohabitate without the approval of the local preacher. Those are just a few of the ways individual freedom has increased ... We may have taken a small step backward with overzealous mass surveillance but it has done little to reverse the great strides forward that occurred in the 60's and 70's.
You paint a mistakenly rosy picture of American, I assume, society. The incarceration rate in America is beyond the dreams of, say, WWII era dictators. And state governments routinely snatch babies from their families - often without cause. (I won't even deal with you call a "small" step backwards.) Sure, if you selectively list positive developments, freedom looks as though it has marched forward, but if you remove your filter, you'll realize freedom in America is more crippled than ever.
This topic is about fracking wells, not being well fracked.
That's a well established frack.
Ross Ulbricht is arrogant, inexperienced and dumb, and he doesn't have a sufficiently strong moral foundation to operate a large anti-establishment enterprise. When arrested, he was using the Glen Park public library (in his home city of San Francisco, CA USA) WiFi viewing a Silk Road admin page he had titled "mastermind". This event shows his attitude toward himself and his level of caution. He was caught because he slipped-up on identity security, realized it, yet took no precautions, like leaving the country.
I'll provide personal story that gives some insight into my own attitude toward being cautious while at the screen: Of the last three times I was busted, once (for traffic warrant) occurred as I was biking away from the courthouse, but the other two times prior (one traffic and the other, I kid you not, for littering) I was sitting in front of the computer at home.
The rule of law is applied in the US every day. Laws are being reviewed and modified as situations change in modern day society. The recent changes to the legality of marijuana is a good example of a flexible system of law. ...
You example is so adrift from your point, at first I thought you were being facetious. The US pot laws and their enforcement is one of the *best* examples of the "rule of law" being applied haphazardly and in a manner contrary to the public interest. Even today, many hundred of thousands (millions is probably closer) suffer from those laws. (For example, dirty pot urine is today in the US a very common cause of revoking bond, violating probation, violating parole, seizing children or invoking numerous other government injurious acts. These are not minor events to the people who suffer.)
Moreover, there still is a serious discrepancy between the public will to legalize pot and the federal laws. And the current administration definitely opposes reform of the federal anti-pot laws.)
The fact that some states are beginning reform after decades of repression illustrates legal sluggishness, if anything.
I looked at a few of your other posts, cavreader. You are very pro-establishment. What kind of government employee or contractor are you?
You were sarcastic, but that is the whole freaking point of the rule of law: a list of rules such that, if you follow those rules, you won't be arrested. It makes for a far better society than one where you can be arrested whenever you annoy someone important, regardless of the rules.
That's an idealistic interpretation of the term, "rule of law", but it is not the one law enforcement, which includes the courts, in America subscribes to. For example, every day, kids (usually white kids preferably with blue eyes) are "removed" from their families by state child protective services departments. No law need to have been broken, and there is no written list of behaviors that will incur this government response. The concept is not hidden from the public. The kids are often taken simply because some state actor has determined the kids are "at risk".
How many times do sharks cruise beaches uneventfully? If this is meant to calm the public mind, well, lets just say this has potential to be counterproductive.
Really. Actually, sharks swim near humans all the time.
I don't suppose Snowden will ever be stupid enough to turn himself in, but what if he were standing trial here in the USA? The public, particularly the tech public, would come to his defense, maybe even with civil disobedience. I would, if I could.
Maybe the government *can't* try Snowden because of the public respect he's garnered.
Is the Forth Amendment specific enough?
...He's not a hero. He's a traitor....There was a right way to do this, he didn't even try a little bit to go that route.
He took on a huge personal risk for the good of America the world, and he did so knowingly and thoughtfully. I'm not sure how you define "hero", but for me, this guy fits the bill.
I would have done it too, and I would have been proud of myself if I had.
And what is this "right way" you mention? What are you suggesting he should have done? He did expose the activity in the right way. He saw something harmful for America, and then he went directly to his authority and reveled it. His authority is the American people.
The problems and inadequacies with the system described are stated in many other posts, so I won't repeat. But I've been working on a bike theft deterrent system myself. Unfortunately, I don't feel comfortable describing my work in a public forum because my words may be used against me in court when my device executes properly. I've noticed, however, that if the case goes to a jury trial, the jury always acquits the property owner who made the booby trap. If you leave a bike poorly locked publicly in my city, someone inevitably will try to steal it. If you setup the situation, you will catch a thief in the act. If you are concerned about getting the wrong target, you can watch from a distance with a control.
"Arrest-Proof Yourself"? Note my question mark. Ha Ha.That's closing the barn door belatedly for some of us. Hummmmm......Actually, I began reading. I must say I was skeptical when I clicked the link, but the authors, Dale C. Carson & Wes Denham, laid out a colorful table of contents that drew me in. It's a common sense (2007) book with lots of practical advice. I'm afraid we in the US need such a book. I'm downloading it. Carson's 3 golden rules: "If cops can't see you, they can't arrest you," "Keep your dope at home," and "Give cops your name and basic info, then shut the f*@# up!" I don't understand why people still buy books when you can just get (most of) them for nothing.
Sure, English speaking /. readers, who understand small quadcopters are unlikely to have a real vid card, can deduce what the writer (Nerval's Lobster) meant, but that doesn't excuse the writer for his imprecision. Besides, your 2 example terms have reasonable legacy etymologies. The writer's term use was just a sloppy mistake.
The summary says "the Russian government is warning its citizens to not travel to countries that have an extradition treaty with the United States", but the article says: "The Russian Foreign Ministry posted advice of a somewhat different nature on Monday, cautioning people wanted by the United States not to visit nations that have an extradition treaty with it." Unfortunately, that small omission significantly changes the meaning of the line.
The summary says "the Russian government is warning its citizens to not travel to countries that have an extradition treaty with the United States", but the article says: "The Russian Foreign Ministry posted advice of a somewhat different nature on Monday, cautioning people wanted by the United States not to visit nations that have an extradition treaty with it." Unfortunately, that small omission significantly changes the meaning of the line.
I'm glad you read the article for me. I assumed the summary was accurate, but I now see it's seriously misleading. Unknown Lamer, the submitter, should be ashamed. The summary-version implies Russia is suggesting the US, at whim, may have you arrested in one of its allied countries. In the article-version, Russia is giving straight legal advice: if there is a US warrant for you, don't travel where a US warrant can be enforced.
... Goddamn I love living in the future.
Nope. You're living the the present. You'll never make it to the future.
Actually, the burden is on the promoter to prove that it DOES work. Until then, I have the position it doesn't, and I don't need to provide a thought experiment or anything else.
OK, how?
My mother was a little more capable with computers than you describe yours, but didn't like them or use them all that much. Yet, the story is just like yours. Once she got a Samsung Galaxy tablet, she uses it so much it is almost constantly with her. And she doesn't need my assistance other than what I showed her the first couple days she owned it. Two of her friends have also gotten them having seen hers. They too went from minimal computer use to being regular enthusiastic users of the tablets they own.
Other than trying them out at a store, I haven't used a tablet. I use a laptop constantly. However, your endorsement plus the others in this thread have convinced me a tablet is the path to getting a non-computer female to use a computer. If it does that, there's something to them.
Actually, many advertisers simply lie. For examples, just look at the pictures on American fast-food ads. They don't show the real product at all. So, you really don't need to analyze every modifier in an ad; simply, view anything promotional written by the anybody with a steak as unreliable.
It's unnecessary to spend hours studying the sexual allegations. Their timing makes then obviously false or trumped up. Accepting them means we're expected to believe that coincidentally Assange engaged in questionable sex while he published secret and embarrassing government messages.
Reminds me of that little Cuban boy who was "NOT" seized from his family at gun point by SWAT police...until the photo was released that showed just that.
His family? You mean the deceased mother's 2nd and 3rd relatives and a bunch of right-wing Cuban-American celebrities and politicians? His family was his father (his living and breathing father) to whom the swat team delivered the boy.
His family was his father, who was asking Elian Gonzales (the boy) to be returned to his care. His mother and husband at the time took him out of Cuba in a raft in complete violation of the father's shared custody rights. His family was not the people who held Elian Gonzales (the boy in question) refusing to deliver him to his father just because he didn't want to leave Cuba. It was all political, a disgraceful spectacle that we in Miami had to endure at the hand of those nutjobs.
The swat team had to intervene because the people holding Elian were treating to retaliate with violence. Get your facts straight buddy.
Exactly. Actually, this is one time the US government did the right thing (by re-uniting Elián González with his father). My objection was that it delayed doing it. The Cubans in Florida who are opposed to Castro have been a perpetual problem pushing their selfish cause. Granting them (and pretty much them only) automatic political asylum is the root of the problem.