I agree completely - open source or nothing. But you would not BELIEVE the hassle I get checking into an airline when I refuse to let them close the door and take off until I've inspected all of their flight code. Bunch of unreasonable pricks.
My guess is that the low adoption rate of high definition tv is partially due to the Blu-ray HD-DVD format war. Now that (thankfully) it is finally over, prices will drop and I, and almost everyone I know, will go out and get some hi-def equipment.
If an airline for whatever reason wants to impose extra security AFTER the airport security, then that's their perrogative. However an airline should not be able to REPLACE an independant security group.
You falsely accused me of fabricating mod points for some twisted reason I don't really understand. Your opportunity of continuing a rational conversation on this topic ended with that childish claim.
What are you talking about? Do uthink that just because you don't agree with me then no one else possibly could and I manufactured the mod points? Stop being such an arrogant ass. People are entitled to a different opinion than you.
And the Canadians didn't bother him for years until the US started applying pressure. I believe the worst he ever got was a token ($200) fine. The US wants to put him in jail for 10 years. There's no way anyone would get that much jailtime in Canada for pot possession. The US are behind the arrest, regardless of who actually executed the arrest.
Actually my understanding of the law came from the appeal filed which argued that since cannibis seeds were not specifically listed under the substance control act, and therefore possession of the seeds was not illegal.
I just followed up on the result of the appeal and the illegality of seed possesion was upheld by the appeals court. So you are right - it is illegal.
HOWEVER - the appeals court fined him $200 for running a store selling and advertising marijuana seeds. The US wants to give him a draconian and ridiculous 10 years in jail. So yes its illegal but ot the the extent that the US portays it to be.
You can kill a person and get less jail time in the US. It's the US justice system that are a bunch of fools.
Furthermore, pott is more damaging to your lungs than smoking a pack of cigarettes,
I call bullshit on that one. The only reason cigarettes can be argued to be less dangerous is becuse of the filter, that rolled joints do not have. If you just look at tobacco vs marijuana, tobacco has far more chemicals and is far more addictive than pot.
That said, pot today is far more harmful than the pot smoked in the 70s as todays pot has been specificaly bred to increase the mind altering components. It still however isn't anywhere near as harmful as smoking cigarettes or cigars.
He was exporting marijuana seeds from Canada, into the US. And, by all likelihood he was using the USPS and/or customs agents to do it.
Actually I'm pretty sure when he mailed it he was using the Canadian postal service, not the US one (since he mailed it in Canada). If it transferred hands part way that's not his problem.
He does not have to cross borders. The items he is selling and delivering to his customer did. That, is simply enough to charge a business with violation of US law.
Again, the US's methods of intimidation were sketchy at best, but he still broke US law, when he sent his goods into the US.
But that's the whole point of the discussion isn't it? Yes he broke US law and I'm sure he could give a rats ass what US laws he broke. The point is that he's a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil and he didn't break Canadian law, therefore the US shouldn't have grounds to arrest him.
The US government felt they had the right to arrest him for selling over the internet to persons located in the US.
The US government is wrong.
Had he kept his business entirely confined to areas that sale of seeds was legal, we would just be royally ticked at him, not locking him up. He did it to himself when he sold his first item to someone in the US and sent it to them.
So why not arrest the people who bought the seeds - they are the ones that broke the law. He did not solicit sales from US citizens or advertise there in any way. Nor did he ever break Canadian law. Besides, what would be stopping an American from setting up a Canadian PO box address that forwards to the US? Is it his responsibility to check every address to see if it is real and not forwarded?
If you sold something on ebay are you responsible for checking all of the laws in the destination country to see if you are violating any of them? For example caffenated drinks in Canada have to be colored - clear drinks such as 7-up, mountain dew, sprite etc have to be caffeine free. If I bought a caffenated 7-up from you and you mailed it to me does that mean I can have you extradited and thrown in jail in Canada for breaking our laws?
If the US really wanted to stop him they could have simply blocked the IP address from US ISPs and/or arrested their own citizens buying from him.
Canada?? wtf I thought you had more sense and balls. Why did you let this happen?
I'm hoping the Canadian government tells the DEA and the US prosecutors they can take a good long hard suck on our collective asses, then passes a law blocking any future lawsuits or extradition requests unless he actually breaks a Canadian law.
I think the problem in that particular case is that the Canadian in question supplied marijuana to people living under USA jurisdiction. If orders from people living in the USA had not been accepted, and deliveries not made to locations under USA jurisdiction, then yes, you can complain about extra-territoriality
He broke no Canadian laws - it's the Americans that broke the law by buying. He never advertised in the US, nor did he ever solicit their business. If you sold something on ebay that was legal in the US, but broke the laws of the country of the person who bought it, would you accept extradition to that country to rot in their jails?
As it is, the USA have applied to extradite the Canadian, and Canada have not demurred, and the request is not being fought by the extraditee.
Thats not the whole story. He's only not fighting extridition because they were threatening to sue/arrest his coworkers and friends - one who has a medical condition and would have likely died in a US prison. He nor his friends have any money to fight these constant lawsuits that the US government has been firing at him for the last 20 years.
If I were to mail a bomb from Canada to the US and it killed a US citizen, would I go to trial in America or Canada?
Both probably - mailing a bomb is illegal in Canada.
Let's put it this way. Would the US permit Canada to arrest American citizens that have never stepped foot in Canada for handgun possesion because handgun possesion is illegal (in most circumstances) in Canada? I wonder how well that would go over in the US if that happend?
So if we can prosecute swedish people for crimes that aren't crimes in their country can we also give speeding tickets to drivers on the autobahn that drive over 55 mph?
Apparently the government thinks so. The US government recently had a Canadian arrested on Canadian soil for selling marijuana seeds on the internet (something that's not illegal in Canada). At no time did this person set foot on American soil, nor did he ever break Canadian law. Everything he did was above board right down to declaring exactly what he did on his Canadian tax return and paying taxes on the income. All profits were even donated to charity.
I suppose I could see that. Engineers do tend to try to put things into precise terms--black and white, right and wrong, within tolerances and unacceptable. This is similar to fundamentalist views of the world, in a way...
It's very simple really - terrorists recruit engineers because engineers are useful. They build things. They know how things work. Therefore they can build weapons to destroy things. Simple.
What the hell is the use of a sociology or liberal arts major to a terrorist other than to strap a bomb to? What are they going to do - argue with or recite poetry to a building until it falls down?
The engineers and scientists are there for their skillset, not for any mental similarity to terrorists. Leave it to a bunch of arts majors to completely overlook the practicality of the issue.
In a real pinch it's technically possible - the question is, is viewing a target worth shortening the life of the bird by however much? Maybe for a rogue nuke scenario, like in some sort of Tom Clancy novel, there are guys at Langley that can authorize it.
Sure it's *technically* possible, given you sent a satellite up there with that purpose in mind, but not practically possible. Satellites usually just have orientation thrusters, not something strong enough to change orbit. Some satellites have a reentry thruster with just enough fuel to kick it out of orbit but thats it. To carry enough fuel to change orbits is just not realistic.
Satelites have several thrusters, some may run out of fuel earlier than others, and while it is possible to run without one or two, it does eventually become a problem.
You have no idea how a spacraft works do you? Each thruster typically does not have its own independant fuel supply - they are all ganged together off of common but sometimes redundant tanks.
And all the criminals would carry sawed off weapons and go around mugging people for their ammo.
Well if you have a gun shorter than 5 feet you are obviously a criminal and therefore go instantly to jail. Then institute a three strikes and we electrocute you rule. Problem solved with the petty muggings.
It's worth remembering that organized crime in America didn't really take off till prohibition, when they suddenly found something illegal that was very profitable with minimal risk. Always remember the law of unintended consequences.
Yup. I agree completely. That's why outlawing harmless things like simple pot posession is just moronic. Think of the millions of dollars thats spent and thousands in jail trying to stop something thats relatively harmless.
Guess you think concealed-carry licenses are a bad idea too.
I do. I see nothing wrong with protection of life and property, but you don't need a concealed gun to do that.
Basically they should outlaw any gun under five feet long. And bullets should be ridiculously priced, like $10k or something (although every 5ft or longer gun would come with one free bullet). That keeps the right for self defence but gets rid of the morons shooting at each other for fun.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree completely - open source or nothing. But you would not BELIEVE the hassle I get checking into an airline when I refuse to let them close the door and take off until I've inspected all of their flight code. Bunch of unreasonable pricks.
History has shown in previous format wars that once a standard has been chosen prices for both hardware and the medium drop.
And given that current prices for BD players are half of what you state, I'm seriously doubting the accuracy of your statements.
Frequently? never heard that before - sounds like product bashing from the HD-DVD fanboys.
My guess is that the low adoption rate of high definition tv is partially due to the Blu-ray HD-DVD format war. Now that (thankfully) it is finally over, prices will drop and I, and almost everyone I know, will go out and get some hi-def equipment.
If an airline for whatever reason wants to impose extra security AFTER the airport security, then that's their perrogative. However an airline should not be able to REPLACE an independant security group.
Security was being run by an airline? Really?
If true - that's the stupidist thing I've ever heard. Security should be independant of the airlines. It is here in Canada at least.
You falsely accused me of fabricating mod points for some twisted reason I don't really understand. Your opportunity of continuing a rational conversation on this topic ended with that childish claim.
Stop being such a fuck. Jesus what an ass.
Simple possession in Canada is ignored by most police, so while it is technically illegal, in practic it is not.
It's the same as driving 62 in a 60 zone. Yes the driver is breaking the law but no cop would ever pull you over for that.
Everthing I said was perfectly valid since the law, while on the books, was not being enforced.
What are you talking about? Do uthink that just because you don't agree with me then no one else possibly could and I manufactured the mod points? Stop being such an arrogant ass. People are entitled to a different opinion than you.
And the Canadians didn't bother him for years until the US started applying pressure. I believe the worst he ever got was a token ($200) fine. The US wants to put him in jail for 10 years. There's no way anyone would get that much jailtime in Canada for pot possession. The US are behind the arrest, regardless of who actually executed the arrest.
Actually my understanding of the law came from the appeal filed which argued that since cannibis seeds were not specifically listed under the substance control act, and therefore possession of the seeds was not illegal.
I just followed up on the result of the appeal and the illegality of seed possesion was upheld by the appeals court. So you are right - it is illegal.
HOWEVER - the appeals court fined him $200 for running a store selling and advertising marijuana seeds. The US wants to give him a draconian and ridiculous 10 years in jail. So yes its illegal but ot the the extent that the US portays it to be.
You can kill a person and get less jail time in the US. It's the US justice system that are a bunch of fools.
Actually I was wondering how this affected anyone on Slashdot as none of them get to mate ever anyway.
I call bullshit on that one. The only reason cigarettes can be argued to be less dangerous is becuse of the filter, that rolled joints do not have. If you just look at tobacco vs marijuana, tobacco has far more chemicals and is far more addictive than pot.
That said, pot today is far more harmful than the pot smoked in the 70s as todays pot has been specificaly bred to increase the mind altering components. It still however isn't anywhere near as harmful as smoking cigarettes or cigars.
Actually I'm pretty sure when he mailed it he was using the Canadian postal service, not the US one (since he mailed it in Canada). If it transferred hands part way that's not his problem.
But that's the whole point of the discussion isn't it? Yes he broke US law and I'm sure he could give a rats ass what US laws he broke. The point is that he's a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil and he didn't break Canadian law, therefore the US shouldn't have grounds to arrest him.
The US government is wrong.
So why not arrest the people who bought the seeds - they are the ones that broke the law. He did not solicit sales from US citizens or advertise there in any way. Nor did he ever break Canadian law. Besides, what would be stopping an American from setting up a Canadian PO box address that forwards to the US? Is it his responsibility to check every address to see if it is real and not forwarded?
If you sold something on ebay are you responsible for checking all of the laws in the destination country to see if you are violating any of them? For example caffenated drinks in Canada have to be colored - clear drinks such as 7-up, mountain dew, sprite etc have to be caffeine free. If I bought a caffenated 7-up from you and you mailed it to me does that mean I can have you extradited and thrown in jail in Canada for breaking our laws?
If the US really wanted to stop him they could have simply blocked the IP address from US ISPs and/or arrested their own citizens buying from him.
That's the whole point - he wasn't shipping marijuana, he was shipping seeds which are not a controlled substance under Canadian law.
I'm hoping the Canadian government tells the DEA and the US prosecutors they can take a good long hard suck on our collective asses, then passes a law blocking any future lawsuits or extradition requests unless he actually breaks a Canadian law.
He broke no Canadian laws - it's the Americans that broke the law by buying. He never advertised in the US, nor did he ever solicit their business. If you sold something on ebay that was legal in the US, but broke the laws of the country of the person who bought it, would you accept extradition to that country to rot in their jails?
Thats not the whole story. He's only not fighting extridition because they were threatening to sue/arrest his coworkers and friends - one who has a medical condition and would have likely died in a US prison. He nor his friends have any money to fight these constant lawsuits that the US government has been firing at him for the last 20 years.
Both probably - mailing a bomb is illegal in Canada.
Let's put it this way. Would the US permit Canada to arrest American citizens that have never stepped foot in Canada for handgun possesion because handgun possesion is illegal (in most circumstances) in Canada? I wonder how well that would go over in the US if that happend?
Apparently the government thinks so. The US government recently had a Canadian arrested on Canadian soil for selling marijuana seeds on the internet (something that's not illegal in Canada). At no time did this person set foot on American soil, nor did he ever break Canadian law. Everything he did was above board right down to declaring exactly what he did on his Canadian tax return and paying taxes on the income. All profits were even donated to charity.
Yet the US government felt that they had the right to arrest him. More info here: http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5h9Y7CVPeypqV77yWBmI45x_mP9SA.
It's very simple really - terrorists recruit engineers because engineers are useful. They build things. They know how things work. Therefore they can build weapons to destroy things. Simple.
What the hell is the use of a sociology or liberal arts major to a terrorist other than to strap a bomb to? What are they going to do - argue with or recite poetry to a building until it falls down?
The engineers and scientists are there for their skillset, not for any mental similarity to terrorists. Leave it to a bunch of arts majors to completely overlook the practicality of the issue.
Sure it's *technically* possible, given you sent a satellite up there with that purpose in mind, but not practically possible. Satellites usually just have orientation thrusters, not something strong enough to change orbit. Some satellites have a reentry thruster with just enough fuel to kick it out of orbit but thats it. To carry enough fuel to change orbits is just not realistic.
You have no idea how a spacraft works do you? Each thruster typically does not have its own independant fuel supply - they are all ganged together off of common but sometimes redundant tanks.
Well if you have a gun shorter than 5 feet you are obviously a criminal and therefore go instantly to jail. Then institute a three strikes and we electrocute you rule. Problem solved with the petty muggings.
Yup. I agree completely. That's why outlawing harmless things like simple pot posession is just moronic. Think of the millions of dollars thats spent and thousands in jail trying to stop something thats relatively harmless.
Really? I thought it was the lawyers and polititians.
I do. I see nothing wrong with protection of life and property, but you don't need a concealed gun to do that.
Basically they should outlaw any gun under five feet long. And bullets should be ridiculously priced, like $10k or something (although every 5ft or longer gun would come with one free bullet). That keeps the right for self defence but gets rid of the morons shooting at each other for fun.